sustaining exception in Louisiana

2010REVERSED AND REMANDED. . 2003-2757 (La.App. 1 Cir. 9/17/04) , 885 So.2d 1234 . .

2010REVERSED AND REMANDED. . 2003-2757 (La.App. 1 Cir. 9/17/04) , 885 So.2d 1234 . .

2015Romero, et al., 15-473 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/9/15) , — So.3d -, 2015 WL 8331104 , the judgment of the trial court sustaining the exception of prescription of the City of Abbeville, Abbeville Police Department, and Austin J.

2015Romero, et al., 15-473 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/9/15) , — So.3d -, 2015 WL 8331104 , the judgment of the trial court sustaining the exception of prescription of the City of Abbeville, Abbeville Police Department, and Austin J.

1989EXCEPTIONS OF NO CAUSE OF ACTION The standard for sustaining an exception of no cause of action was set forth in Delta Bank & Trust Co. v. Lassiter, 383 So.2d 330 (La.1980), as follows: "In ruling on the peremptory exception of no cause of action, the court must presume the correctness of the well pleaded allegations of fact in the plaintiff's petition, and must determine if the fact of the petition presents a case which legally entitles the plaintiff to the relief sought." Delta Bank & Trust Co. v. Lassiter, 383 So.2d 330 at page 336 (La. 1980).

1989EXCEPTIONS OF NO CAUSE OF ACTION The standard for sustaining an exception of no cause of action was set forth in Delta Bank & Trust Co. v. Lassiter, 383 So.2d 330 (La.1980), as follows: "In ruling on the peremptory exception of no cause of action, the court must presume the correctness of the well pleaded allegations of fact in the plaintiff's petition, and must determine if the fact of the petition presents a case which legally entitles the plaintiff to the relief sought." Delta Bank & Trust Co. v. Lassiter, 383 So.2d 330 at page 336 (La. 1980).

2010Industrial Companies, Inc. v. Durbin, 02-0665, pp. 6-7 (La.1/28/03), 837 So.2d 1207, 1213 ; Cleco Corp. v. Johnson, 01-0175, p. 3 (La.9/18/01), 795 So.2d 302, 304 .

2009Industrial Companies, Inc. v. Durbin, 02-0665, pp. 6-7 (La.1/28/03), 837 So.2d 1207, 1213 ; Cleco Corp. v. Johnson, 01-0175, p. 3 (La.9/18/01), 795 So.2d 302, 304 .

2010Industrial Companies, Inc. v. Durbin, 02-0665, pp. 6-7 (La.1/28/03), 837 So.2d 1207, 1213 ; Cleco Corp. v. Johnson, 01-0175, p. 3 (La.9/18/01), 795 So.2d 302, 304 .

2009Industrial Companies, Inc. v. Durbin, 02-0665, pp. 6-7 (La.1/28/03), 837 So.2d 1207, 1213 ; Cleco Corp. v. Johnson, 01-0175, p. 3 (La.9/18/01), 795 So.2d 302, 304 .

1987Plaquemines Parish Commission Council v. Perez, 379 So.2d 1373 (La.1980); Hero Lands Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 310 So.2d 93 (La.1975); Rebman v. Reed, 286 So.2d 341 (La.1973).

1985Plaquemines Parish Commission Council v. Perez, 379 So.2d 1373 (La.1980); Hero Lands Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 310 So.2d 93 (La.1975); Rebman v. Reed, 286 So.2d 341 (La.1973).

1987Plaquemines Parish Commission Council v. Perez, 379 So.2d 1373 (La.1980); Hero Lands Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 310 So.2d 93 (La.1975); Rebman v. Reed, 286 So.2d 341 (La.1973).

1985Plaquemines Parish Commission Council v. Perez, 379 So.2d 1373 (La.1980); Hero Lands Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 310 So.2d 93 (La.1975); Rebman v. Reed, 286 So.2d 341 (La.1973).

1987Plaquemines Parish Commission Council v. Perez, 379 So.2d 1373 (La.1980); Hero Lands Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 310 So.2d 93 (La.1975); Rebman v. Reed, 286 So.2d 341 (La.1973).

1985Plaquemines Parish Commission Council v. Perez, 379 So.2d 1373 (La.1980); Hero Lands Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 310 So.2d 93 (La.1975); Rebman v. Reed, 286 So.2d 341 (La.1973).

1960Arata v. Orleans Capitol Stores, Inc., supra; Dodge v. Bituminous Casualty Corporation, 214 La. 1031 , 39 So.2d 720 ; West v. Ray, 210 La. 25 , 26 So.2d 221 ; Gibbs v. Illinois Cent.

1960Arata v. Orleans Capitol Stores, Inc., supra; Dodge v. Bituminous Casualty Corporation, 214 La. 1031 , 39 So.2d 720 ; West v. Ray, 210 La. 25 , 26 So.2d 221 ; Gibbs v. Illinois Cent.

1954Under the provisions of Article 353 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now LSA-R.S. 15:353), a defendant suffers no prejudice from the sustaining of a challenge for cause “unless the effect of such ruling is the exercise by the prosecution of more peremptory challenges than it is entitled to by law * * See also State v. Thomas, 41 La.Ann. 1088 , 6 So. 803 and State v. Jackson, 42 La.Ann. 1170 , 8 So. 297 .

1954Under the provisions of Article 353 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now LSA-R.S. 15:353), a defendant suffers no prejudice from the sustaining of a challenge for cause "unless the effect of such ruling is the exercise by the prosecution of more peremptory challenges than it is entitled to by law * * *." See also State v. Thomas, 41 La.Ann. 1088 , 6 So. 803 and State v. Jackson, 42 La.Ann. 1170 , 8 So. 297 .

2024Wederstrandt v. Kol, 22-1570, p. 4 (La. 6/27/23), 366 So.3d 47 , 51 (quoting Ramey v. DeCaire, 03-1299, p. 7 (La. 3/19/04), 869 So.2d 114, 119 ).

2023Id., 348 So.3d at 221-22.

2020Id.

2016The employer introduced the exhibits that were attached to its memorandum in .support of the exception as follows: 1) the workers’ compensation judgment resulting from the May 16, 2013 hearing; 2) Lamartiniere, 137 So.3d 119 (the initial appellate opinion rendered April 9, 2014 in which a panel of this court did not consider the claimant’s entitlement to continued, SEB benefits); 3) LaMar-tiniere, 149 So.3d 1234 (the per curiam of October 24, 2014'in which the supreme court granted the claimant's writ application.in part and remanded the matter for consideration of whether the record was suffi

2016The employer introduced the exhibits that were attached to its memorandum in .support of the exception as follows: 1) the workers’ compensation judgment resulting from the May 16, 2013 hearing; 2) Lamartiniere, 137 So.3d 119 (the initial appellate opinion rendered April 9, 2014 in which a panel of this court did not consider the claimant’s entitlement to continued, SEB benefits); 3) LaMar-tiniere, 149 So.3d 1234 (the per curiam of October 24, 2014'in which the supreme court granted the claimant's writ application.in part and remanded the matter for consideration of whether the record was suffi

2016The employer introduced the exhibits that were attached to its memorandum in .support of the exception as follows: 1) the workers’ compensation judgment resulting from the May 16, 2013 hearing; 2) Lamartiniere, 137 So.3d 119 (the initial appellate opinion rendered April 9, 2014 in which a panel of this court did not consider the claimant’s entitlement to continued, SEB benefits); 3) LaMar-tiniere, 149 So.3d 1234 (the per curiam of October 24, 2014'in which the supreme court granted the claimant's writ application.in part and remanded the matter for consideration of whether the record was suffi

2016The employer introduced the exhibits that were attached to its memorandum in .support of the exception as follows: 1) the workers’ compensation judgment resulting from the May 16, 2013 hearing; 2) Lamartiniere, 137 So.3d 119 (the initial appellate opinion rendered April 9, 2014 in which a panel of this court did not consider the claimant’s entitlement to continued, SEB benefits); 3) LaMar-tiniere, 149 So.3d 1234 (the per curiam of October 24, 2014'in which the supreme court granted the claimant's writ application.in part and remanded the matter for consideration of whether the record was suffi

2016The employer introduced the exhibits that were attached to its memorandum in .support of the exception as follows: 1) the workers’ compensation judgment resulting from the May 16, 2013 hearing; 2) Lamartiniere, 137 So.3d 119 (the initial appellate opinion rendered April 9, 2014 in which a panel of this court did not consider the claimant’s entitlement to continued, SEB benefits); 3) LaMar-tiniere, 149 So.3d 1234 (the per curiam of October 24, 2014'in which the supreme court granted the claimant's writ application.in part and remanded the matter for consideration of whether the record was suffi

2014A trial court has discretion in its decision whether to allow amendment of the petition after the sustaining of an exception of no cause of action; leave to amend is not required when it would constitute “a vain and useless act.” Broussard, 740 So.2d at 160 .

2013See Bond v. Bond, 35,971 (La.App. 2 Cir. 4/3/02); 813 So.2d 1148, 1150 .

2013Badeaux v. Southwest Computer Bureau, Inc., 05-0612, p. 7 (La. 3/17/06), 929 So.2d 1211, 1217 .

2013Spiritual advice is also subjective at best, and not susceptible of being adjudged “wrong” or “right.” Indeed, as noted by the second circuit in Lann v. Davis, 34-892 (La.App. 2 Cir. 8/22/01) , 793 So.2d 463 , a case in clergy malpractice, based on allegations that a pastor negligently revealed personal and confidential information that was disclosed during private spiritual counseling, in upholding the sustaining of an exception of no cause of action: A pastor who provides counseling services usually does so under the aegis of his church, and is not subjected to the same standards as a state-

2010In Maschek v. Cartemps USA, 2004-1031, p. 5 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2/16/05), 896 So.2d 1189, 1193 , this Court affirmed the sustaining of an exception of res judicata, noting that the statutory scheme in Louisiana: embraces broad usage of the phrase ‘res judicata’ to include both claim preclusion (res judicata) and issue preclusion (collateral estoppel).

2009City of New Orleans , 93-0690, p. 29, 640 So.2d at 253 . |4In reviewing a trial court’s sustaining an exception of no cause of action, an appellate court conducts a de novo review because the exception raises a question of law, and the trial court’s decision is based solely on the sufficiency of the petition.

2006Home Distribution, Inc., 98-1692 at p. 5, 754 So.2d at 1060 .

2004Robertson v. Caddo Parish, Louisiana, 36,540 (La.App.2d Cir.12/11/02), 833 So.2d 1139 ; Fortenberry v. Hibernia Nat'l Bank, 37,266 (La.App.2d Cir.8/20/03), 852 So.2d 1221 . [4] The essential function of an exception of no right of action is to test whether the plaintiff has a real and actual interest in the action.

2004Robertson v. Caddo Parish, Louisiana, 36,540 (La.App.2d Cir.12/11/02), 833 So.2d 1139 ; Fortenberry v. Hibernia Nat'l Bank, 37,266 (La.App.2d Cir.8/20/03), 852 So.2d 1221 . [4] The essential function of an exception of no right of action is to test whether the plaintiff has a real and actual interest in the action.

2003For the reasons assigned in the companion case of Deano v. Akkaraju, 03-142 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/1/03) , 856 So.2d 155 , we affirm the judgment of the trial court sustaining the exception of no cause of action and dismissing the petition for declaratory judgment.