district court maintained exception in Louisiana

1971The Court of Appeal affirmed. 231 So.2d 725 .

1971The Court of Appeal affirmed. 231 So.2d 725 .

2009In its written Reasons for Judgment, the trial court wrote: The Court considered the Louisiana Supreme Court case of Coleman v. Deno, 01-1517, (La.1/25/02), 813 So.2d 303, 315 , and finds that the six factors set forth by the Louisiana Supreme Court for determination of whether the conduct of a qualified health care provider constitutes “malpractice” has[sic] been satisfied.

1982PLAINTIFFS' ARGUMENTS Plaintiffs' brief commences by stating that the district court erred in maintaining the exception of no cause of action by: "Misreading plaintiffs' cause of action as one sounding in breach of contract, instead of a tortuous breach of contract and in tort, and as implicitly seeking damages because the lessee failed to engage in `offset' drilling, the district court maintained the exception of no cause of action based on Breaux v. Pan American Petroleum Company, 163 So.2d 406 (3rd Cir. 1964).

1981The court of appeal reversed and remanded, finding that First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Concordia Vidalia v. Smith, supra , did not address the issue of whether La.R.S. 6:852(C) delegated to the Commissioner power constitutionally reserved to the legislative branch. [3] Dryades then filed a motion for summary judgment, requesting that La.

1978On June 30, 1977 the district court maintained the exception of no right of action as to the two State Representatives, Drew and O'Neal, and held: "(2) Ordinance No. 6265 of the City of New Orleans is hereby declared to be constitutional, not in conflict with, but rather in furtherance of the State Statute R.S. 13:691(c). (3) The injunctive relief sought by the plaintiff, State of Louisiana, seeking to prohibit the City of New Orleans and its designated officials from further implementing or enforcing said Ordinance No. 6265 or making payment thereunder to judges is hereby denied." The State s

1969In his reasons for judgment, the trial judge relied entirely upon the authority of Gray v. De Bretton, 192 La. 628 , 188 So. 722 (1939), and held that in that case the Supreme Court stated the jurisprudence of Louisiana on this subject, and "* * * distinguished between a public and private duty owed by a sheriff and his surety to third persons who were injured through the negligence of a deputy sheriff." The question of a sheriff's and his official surety's liability for damages for wrongful or negligent acts of a deputy while in the discharge of the duties of his office has been before the co

1969In his reasons for judgment, the trial judge relied entirely upon the authority of Gray v. De Bretton, 192 La. 628 , 188 So. 722 (1939), and held that in that case the Supreme Court stated the jurisprudence of Louisiana on this subject, and "* * * distinguished between a public and private duty owed by a sheriff and his surety to third persons who were injured through the negligence of a deputy sheriff." The question of a sheriff's and his official surety's liability for damages for wrongful or negligent acts of a deputy while in the discharge of the duties of his office has been before the co

1962Rita Roman Catholic Church, La.App., 130 So.2d 425 .

1960In Spinato v. Lowe, supra, we granted a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the Court of Appeal upon which defendants rely, and subsequently, because the year 1959 had expired before the case was heard in this Court, we dismissed plaintiff’s suit and recalled the writ because the issues presented for determination had become moot.

1956The district court maintained an exception of no cause of action filed by defendants and its ruling was affirmed by the Court of Appeal of the Orleans Circuit, 79 So.2d 575 , those courts having been of the opinion that the pertinent provision of Section 8 means two-thirds of a quorum (with a minimum of five).