definite rule in Louisiana

1975Thus, "The general rule is that any statute or ordinance that purports to vest arbitrary discretion in a public officer, without prescribing a definite rule for his guidance, is unconstitutional." City of Shreveport v. Herndon, 159 La. 113 , 105 So. 244 (1925), and the seven cases cited to support this rule.

1975Thus, "The general rule is that any statute or ordinance that purports to vest arbitrary discretion in a public officer, without prescribing a definite rule for his guidance, is unconstitutional." City of Shreveport v. Herndon, 159 La. 113 , 105 So. 244 (1925), and the seven cases cited to support this rule.

1960The leading case in the `Initial Permission' states is the case of Dickinson v. Maryland Casualty Co., 101 Conn. 369 , 125 A. 866 , 41 A.L.R. 500 , followed by Stovall v. New York Indemnity Co., 157 Tenn. 301 , 8 S.W.2d 473 , 72 A.L.R. 1368 . [Emphasis added.] "In the Dickinson case the court went so far as to say that the purpose of the Omnibus Clause was not only to protect a person legally operating the car with the permission of the insured, but also to protect any person injured by the operation of the car by giving him a cause of action against the insurer for injuries deemed by the law

1960The leading case in the `Initial Permission' states is the case of Dickinson v. Maryland Casualty Co., 101 Conn. 369 , 125 A. 866 , 41 A.L.R. 500 , followed by Stovall v. New York Indemnity Co., 157 Tenn. 301 , 8 S.W.2d 473 , 72 A.L.R. 1368 . [Emphasis added.] "In the Dickinson case the court went so far as to say that the purpose of the Omnibus Clause was not only to protect a person legally operating the car with the permission of the insured, but also to protect any person injured by the operation of the car by giving him a cause of action against the insurer for injuries deemed by the law

1960The leading case in the `Initial Permission' states is the case of Dickinson v. Maryland Casualty Co., 101 Conn. 369 , 125 A. 866 , 41 A.L.R. 500 , followed by Stovall v. New York Indemnity Co., 157 Tenn. 301 , 8 S.W.2d 473 , 72 A.L.R. 1368 . [Emphasis added.] "In the Dickinson case the court went so far as to say that the purpose of the Omnibus Clause was not only to protect a person legally operating the car with the permission of the insured, but also to protect any person injured by the operation of the car by giving him a cause of action against the insurer for injuries deemed by the law

1960The leading case in the `Initial Permission' states is the case of Dickinson v. Maryland Casualty Co., 101 Conn. 369 , 125 A. 866 , 41 A.L.R. 500 , followed by Stovall v. New York Indemnity Co., 157 Tenn. 301 , 8 S.W.2d 473 , 72 A.L.R. 1368 . [Emphasis added.] "In the Dickinson case the court went so far as to say that the purpose of the Omnibus Clause was not only to protect a person legally operating the car with the permission of the insured, but also to protect any person injured by the operation of the car by giving him a cause of action against the insurer for injuries deemed by the law

1959Co., 116 La. 236 , 40 So. 688 .

1959Co., 116 La. 236 , 40 So. 688 .

1958We believe that this contention is answered by the following ruling from the case of City of Shreveport v. Herndon, 159 La. 113 , 105 So. 244 , 246 : “The general rule is that any statute or ordinance that purports to vest arbitrary discretion in a public officer, without prescribing a definite rule for his guidance, is unconstitutional. 12 A.L.R. 1436 ; Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 , 6 S.Ct. 1064 , 30 L.Ed. 220 ; State v. Mahner, 43 La.Ann. 496 , 9 So. 480 ; State v. Dubarry, 44 La.Ann. [1117] 1119, 11 So. 718 ; State v. Kuntz, 47 La.Ann. [106] 107, 16 So. 651 ; City of New Orleans v. Pal

1925R. 1436 ; Yick Wo v. Hopkins, Sheriff, 118 U. S. 356 , 6 S. Ct. 1064 , 30 L.

1958We believe that this contention is answered by the following ruling from the case of City of Shreveport v. Herndon, 159 La. 113 , 105 So. 244 , 246 : “The general rule is that any statute or ordinance that purports to vest arbitrary discretion in a public officer, without prescribing a definite rule for his guidance, is unconstitutional. 12 A.L.R. 1436 ; Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 , 6 S.Ct. 1064 , 30 L.Ed. 220 ; State v. Mahner, 43 La.Ann. 496 , 9 So. 480 ; State v. Dubarry, 44 La.Ann. [1117] 1119, 11 So. 718 ; State v. Kuntz, 47 La.Ann. [106] 107, 16 So. 651 ; City of New Orleans v. Pal

1958We believe that this contention is answered by the following ruling from the case of City of Shreveport v. Herndon, 159 La. 113 , 105 So. 244 , 246 : “The general rule is that any statute or ordinance that purports to vest arbitrary discretion in a public officer, without prescribing a definite rule for his guidance, is unconstitutional. 12 A.L.R. 1436 ; Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 , 6 S.Ct. 1064 , 30 L.Ed. 220 ; State v. Mahner, 43 La.Ann. 496 , 9 So. 480 ; State v. Dubarry, 44 La.Ann. [1117] 1119, 11 So. 718 ; State v. Kuntz, 47 La.Ann. [106] 107, 16 So. 651 ; City of New Orleans v. Pal

1979Therefore, the Court awards to Mr. Marceleno the sum of $53,000 for the loss of services of his wife aside from love and affection, which award the Court considers conservative and not unreasonable based on all the evidence. . . ." The cases relied on by plaintiff are Ayala v. Bailey Electric Company, Inc., 318 So.2d 645 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1975); Davis v. Powell, 141 So.2d 679 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1962); Little v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins.

1979Therefore, the Court awards to Mr. Marceleno the sum of $53,000 for the loss of services of his wife aside from love and affection, which award the Court considers conservative and not unreasonable based on all the evidence. . . ." The cases relied on by plaintiff are Ayala v. Bailey Electric Company, Inc., 318 So.2d 645 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1975); Davis v. Powell, 141 So.2d 679 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1962); Little v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins.

1958We believe that this contention is answered by the following ruling from the case of City of Shreveport v. Herndon, 159 La. 113 , 105 So. 244 , 246 : “The general rule is that any statute or ordinance that purports to vest arbitrary discretion in a public officer, without prescribing a definite rule for his guidance, is unconstitutional. 12 A.L.R. 1436 ; Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 , 6 S.Ct. 1064 , 30 L.Ed. 220 ; State v. Mahner, 43 La.Ann. 496 , 9 So. 480 ; State v. Dubarry, 44 La.Ann. [1117] 1119, 11 So. 718 ; State v. Kuntz, 47 La.Ann. [106] 107, 16 So. 651 ; City of New Orleans v. Pal

1958We believe that this contention is answered by the following ruling from the case of City of Shreveport v. Herndon, 159 La. 113 , 105 So. 244 , 246 : “The general rule is that any statute or ordinance that purports to vest arbitrary discretion in a public officer, without prescribing a definite rule for his guidance, is unconstitutional. 12 A.L.R. 1436 ; Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 , 6 S.Ct. 1064 , 30 L.Ed. 220 ; State v. Mahner, 43 La.Ann. 496 , 9 So. 480 ; State v. Dubarry, 44 La.Ann. [1117] 1119, 11 So. 718 ; State v. Kuntz, 47 La.Ann. [106] 107, 16 So. 651 ; City of New Orleans v. Pal

1958We believe that this contention is answered by the following ruling from the case of City of Shreveport v. Herndon, 159 La. 113 , 105 So. 244 , 246 : “The general rule is that any statute or ordinance that purports to vest arbitrary discretion in a public officer, without prescribing a definite rule for his guidance, is unconstitutional. 12 A.L.R. 1436 ; Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 , 6 S.Ct. 1064 , 30 L.Ed. 220 ; State v. Mahner, 43 La.Ann. 496 , 9 So. 480 ; State v. Dubarry, 44 La.Ann. [1117] 1119, 11 So. 718 ; State v. Kuntz, 47 La.Ann. [106] 107, 16 So. 651 ; City of New Orleans v. Pal

1958We believe that this contention is answered by the following ruling from the case of City of Shreveport v. Herndon, 159 La. 113 , 105 So. 244 , 246 : “The general rule is that any statute or ordinance that purports to vest arbitrary discretion in a public officer, without prescribing a definite rule for his guidance, is unconstitutional. 12 A.L.R. 1436 ; Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 , 6 S.Ct. 1064 , 30 L.Ed. 220 ; State v. Mahner, 43 La.Ann. 496 , 9 So. 480 ; State v. Dubarry, 44 La.Ann. [1117] 1119, 11 So. 718 ; State v. Kuntz, 47 La.Ann. [106] 107, 16 So. 651 ; City of New Orleans v. Pal

1958We believe that this contention is answered by the following ruling from the case of City of Shreveport v. Herndon, 159 La. 113 , 105 So. 244 , 246 : “The general rule is that any statute or ordinance that purports to vest arbitrary discretion in a public officer, without prescribing a definite rule for his guidance, is unconstitutional. 12 A.L.R. 1436 ; Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 , 6 S.Ct. 1064 , 30 L.Ed. 220 ; State v. Mahner, 43 La.Ann. 496 , 9 So. 480 ; State v. Dubarry, 44 La.Ann. [1117] 1119, 11 So. 718 ; State v. Kuntz, 47 La.Ann. [106] 107, 16 So. 651 ; City of New Orleans v. Pal

1958We believe that this contention is answered by the following ruling from the case of City of Shreveport v. Herndon, 159 La. 113 , 105 So. 244 , 246 : “The general rule is that any statute or ordinance that purports to vest arbitrary discretion in a public officer, without prescribing a definite rule for his guidance, is unconstitutional. 12 A.L.R. 1436 ; Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 , 6 S.Ct. 1064 , 30 L.Ed. 220 ; State v. Mahner, 43 La.Ann. 496 , 9 So. 480 ; State v. Dubarry, 44 La.Ann. [1117] 1119, 11 So. 718 ; State v. Kuntz, 47 La.Ann. [106] 107, 16 So. 651 ; City of New Orleans v. Pal

1958We believe that this contention is answered by the following ruling from the case of City of Shreveport v. Herndon, 159 La. 113 , 105 So. 244 , 246 : “The general rule is that any statute or ordinance that purports to vest arbitrary discretion in a public officer, without prescribing a definite rule for his guidance, is unconstitutional. 12 A.L.R. 1436 ; Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 , 6 S.Ct. 1064 , 30 L.Ed. 220 ; State v. Mahner, 43 La.Ann. 496 , 9 So. 480 ; State v. Dubarry, 44 La.Ann. [1117] 1119, 11 So. 718 ; State v. Kuntz, 47 La.Ann. [106] 107, 16 So. 651 ; City of New Orleans v. Pal

1957J., in Edwards v. Louisiana Forestry Commission, 1952, 221 La. 818 , 60 So.2d 449, 450 , made the following comment: “As Justice Sutherland says in the Cudahy case [Cudahy Packing Co. of Nebraska v. Parramore, 263 U.S. 418 , 44 S.Ct. [153] 154, 68 L.Ed. 366 ]: ‘Whether a given accident is so related or incident to the business must depend upon its own particular circumstances.

1957J., in Edwards v. Louisiana Forestry Commission, 1952, 221 La. 818 , 60 So.2d 449, 450 , made the following comment: “As Justice Sutherland says in the Cudahy case [Cudahy Packing Co. of Nebraska v. Parramore, 263 U.S. 418 , 44 S.Ct. [153] 154, 68 L.Ed. 366 ]: ‘Whether a given accident is so related or incident to the business must depend upon its own particular circumstances.

1957J., in Edwards v. Louisiana Forestry Commission, 1952, 221 La. 818 , 60 So.2d 449, 450 , made the following comment: “As Justice Sutherland says in the Cudahy case [Cudahy Packing Co. of Nebraska v. Parramore, 263 U.S. 418 , 44 S.Ct. [153] 154, 68 L.Ed. 366 ]: ‘Whether a given accident is so related or incident to the business must depend upon its own particular circumstances.

1957J., in Edwards v. Louisiana Forestry Commission, 1952, 221 La. 818 , 60 So.2d 449, 450 , made the following comment: “As Justice Sutherland says in the Cudahy case [Cudahy Packing Co. of Nebraska v. Parramore, 263 U.S. 418 , 44 S.Ct. [153] 154, 68 L.Ed. 366 ]: ‘Whether a given accident is so related or incident to the business must depend upon its own particular circumstances.