320 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1906–2026 42 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Louisiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Everything on Wheels Subaru, Inc. v. Subaru South, Inc.green2 sentences2019Also before us is Santillo's appeal asserting that the trial court erred in granting the exceptions of no cause of action as to Santillo's abuse of process claim and to Santillo's claims that GRR violated LUTPA. *55 ANALYSIS "The function of an exception of no cause of action is to test the legal sufficiency of the petition by determining whether the law affords a remedy on the facts alleged in the pleading." Everything on Wheels Subaru, Inc. v. Subaru S., Inc. , 616 So.2d 1234 , 1235 (La.1993). 2019Also before us is Santillo's appeal asserting that the trial court erred in granting the exceptions of no cause of action as to Santillo's abuse of process claim and to Santillo's claims that GRR violated LUTPA. *55 ANALYSIS "The function of an exception of no cause of action is to test the legal sufficiency of the petition by determining whether the law affords a remedy on the facts alleged in the pleading." Everything on Wheels Subaru, Inc. v. Subaru S., Inc. , 616 So.2d 1234 , 1235 (La.1993). | 42 | 86 |
N. Clark, L.L.C. v. Chisesigreen2 sentences2021“The function of an exception of no right of action is to determine whether the plaintiff belongs to the class of persons to whom the law grants the cause of action asserted in the suit.” N. Clark, L.L.C. v. Chisesi, 2016- 7 0599, p. 5 (La.App. 4 Cir. 12/7/16), 206 So.3d 1013, 1016 (quoting Hood v. Cotter, 2008-0215, p. 17 (La. 12/2/08), 5 So.3d 819, 829 ) (emphasis added). 2021App. 4 Cir. 12/7/16), 206 So.3d 1013, 1016-17 (internal citations omitted), observed: 10 • An exception of no right of action is a threshold device to terminate a suit brought by one who has no interest in judicially enforcing the right asserted. • “The function of an exception of no right of action is to determine whether the plaintiff belongs to the class of persons to whom the law grants the cause of action asserted in the suit.” • “‘When the facts alleged in the petition provide a remedy under the law to someone, but the plaintiff who seeks the relief for himself or herself is not the pers | 5 | 6 |
Shelton v. Southeastern Louisiana Universitygreen2 sentences1989As stated in Shelton v. Southeastern Louisiana University, 431 So.2d 437, 439 (La.App. 1st Cir.1983), the function of rule 13.11(d) is two-fold: (1) it apprises the appellee and the Commission of the material facts in dispute and therefore establishes the scope of the evidentiary hearing; (2) it enables the Commission to gauge the amount of time needed for the evidentiary hearing by narrowing the issues. 1987As stated in Shelton v. Southeastern Louisiana University, 431 So.2d 437, 439 (La.App. 1st Cir.1983), the function of rule 13.11(d) is two-fold: (1) it apprises the appellee and the Commission of the material facts in dispute and therefore establishes the scope of the evidentiary hearing; (2) it enables the Commission to gauge the amount of time needed for the evidentiary hearing by narrowing the issues. | 4 | 5 |
La. Paddlewheels v. La. Riverboat Gaminggreen2 sentences2016Stassi v. State, 11-2264, p, 4 (La.App. 1 Cir. 9/13/12), 102 So.3d 896, 898 . • “The function of an exception of no right of action is to determine whether the plaintiff belongs to the class of persons to whom the law grants the cause of action asserted in the suit.” Hood v. Cotter, 08-0215, p. 17 (La. 12/2/08), 5 So.3d 819, 829 ; see also Industrial Companies, Inc. v. Durbin, 02-0665, pp. 11-12 (La. 1/28/03), 837 So.2d 1207, 1216 (citing Louisiana Paddlewheels v. Louisiana Riverboat Gaming Comm’n, 94-2015, p. 5 (La. 11/30/94), 646 So.2d 885, 888 ). • “ ‘When the facts alleged in the petition 2011In Louisiana Paddlewheels v. Louisiana Riverboat Gaming Comm’n, 94-2015 (La.11/30/94), 646 So.2d 885, 888 , the supreme court explained the exception as follows: The function of the exception of no right of action is to determine whether the plaintiff belongs to the class of persons to whom the law grants the cause of action asserted in the suit. | 3 | 39 |
Hood v. Cottergreen2 sentences2025“The function of the exception of no right of action is to determine whether the plaintiff belongs to the class of persons to whom the law grants the cause of action asserted in the suit.” Hood v. Cotter, 2008-0215, 2008-0237, p. 17 (La. 12/2/08), 5 So.3d 819, 829 (citations omitted). 2025“The function of the exception of no right of action is to determine whether the plaintiff belongs to the class of persons to whom the law grants the cause of action asserted in the suit.” Hood v. Cotter, 2008-0215, 2008-0237, p. 17 (La. 12/2/08), 5 So.3d 819, 829 (citations omitted). | 3 | 31 |
Industrial Companies, Inc. v. Durbingreen2 sentences2018Industrial Companies, Inc. v. Durbin, 02-665 (La. 1/28/03), 837 So.2d 1207 , 1213. 2016Stassi v. State, 11-2264, p, 4 (La.App. 1 Cir. 9/13/12), 102 So.3d 896, 898 . • “The function of an exception of no right of action is to determine whether the plaintiff belongs to the class of persons to whom the law grants the cause of action asserted in the suit.” Hood v. Cotter, 08-0215, p. 17 (La. 12/2/08), 5 So.3d 819, 829 ; see also Industrial Companies, Inc. v. Durbin, 02-0665, pp. 11-12 (La. 1/28/03), 837 So.2d 1207, 1216 (citing Louisiana Paddlewheels v. Louisiana Riverboat Gaming Comm’n, 94-2015, p. 5 (La. 11/30/94), 646 So.2d 885, 888 ). • “ ‘When the facts alleged in the petition | 3 | 14 |
Two Canal Street Investors, Inc. v. New Orleans Building Corp.green2 sentences2023App. 4 Cir. 2/15/17), 212 So.3d 611, 617 (citation omitted). 2022App. 4 Cir. 2/15/17), 212 So.3d 611, 617 (citation omitted). | 2 | 3 |
Gisclair v. Louisiana Tax Commissiongreen2 sentences2025In determining an exception of no 5 right of action, we begin “with an examination of the pleadings.” Gisclair v. Louisiana Tax Comm’n, 2010-0563, p. 2 (La. 9/24/10), 44 So.3d 272, 274 (citations omitted). 2025In determining an exception of no 5 right of action, we begin “with an examination of the pleadings.” Gisclair v. Louisiana Tax Comm’n, 2010-0563, p. 2 (La. 9/24/10), 44 So.3d 272, 274 (citations omitted). | 2 | 2 |
Quatrevingt v. Stategreen2 sentences2023See Quatrevingt, 242 So. 3d at 639 . 14 Texas Brine does not dispute that the same factual contentions at issue in its affirmative defense of fraud against Legacy Vulcan, i.e., whether Legacy Vulcan fraudulently withheld information and consultant reports, are the same facts at issue in its contract -based fraud cause of action. 2023See Quatrevingt, 242 So. 3d at 639 . 14 Texas Brine does not dispute that the same factual contentions at issue in its affirmative defense of fraud against Legacy Vulcan, i.e., whether Legacy Vulcan fraudulently withheld information and consultant reports, are the same facts at issue in its contract -based fraud cause of action. | 2 | 2 |
Babineaux v. Pernie-Bailey Drilling Co.green2 sentences2018Babineaux v. Pernie-Bailey Drilling Co. , 261 La. 1080 , 262 So.2d 328 (1972). 2018Babineaux v. Pernie-Bailey Drilling Co. , 261 La. 1080 , 262 So.2d 328 (1972). | 1 | 14 |
Tyson v. THOMPSON HOME HEALTHgreen2 sentences2014DISCUSSION Exception of No Right of Action — Pa ternity The supreme court explained the appellate review of a ruling on an exception of no right of action in Eagle Pipe & Supply, Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corp., 10-2267, 10-2272, 10-2275, 10-2279, 202289, pp. 6-7 (La.10/25/11), 79 So.3d 246 , 255-56: “The function of the exception of no right of action is to determine whether the plaintiff belongs to the class of persons to whom the law grants the cause of action asserted in the suit.” Hood v. Cotter, 2008-0215, p. 17 (La.12/2/08), 5 So.3d 819, 829 . 2014La.C.C.P. art. 931; Eagle Pipe & Supply, supra. The function of the exception of no right of action is to determine whether the plaintiff belongs to the class of persons to whom the law grants the cause of action asserted in the suit. | 1 | 11 |
Fink v. Bryantgreen2 sentences2021Fink v. Bryant, 01-0987 (La. 11/28/01), 801 So. 2d 346 . 2016The Louisiana Supreme Court in Fink, 801 So.2d at 348-49 (citations omitted), discussed the function of an exception of no cause of action: The function of the peremptory exception of no cause of action is to question whether the law extends a remedy to anyone under the factual allegations of the petition. | 1 | 5 |
Howard v. Administrators of Tulane Ed. Fundgreen2 sentences2018Fund , 07-2224, p. 8 (La. 7/1/08), 986 So.2d 47 , 54. 2016Fund, 07-2224, p. 16 (La. 7/1/08), 986 So.2d 47, 59 (quoting Harry T. | 1 | 2 |
Herman v. Tracage Development, L.L.C.green1 sentence2025Id., 16-0082, p. 5, 201 So.3d at 939 (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
| Bourbon Investments, LLC v. New Orleans Equity LLCgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Harp v. PINE BLUFF AND SAND GRAVEL CO.green | 1 | 1 |
| Ciaccio v. Cazayouxgreen | 1 | 1 |
| In the Matter of Ronald and Marjorie Patterson, Debtors. Appeal of Abbotsford State Bankgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Badeaux v. Southwest Computer Bureau, Inc.
green
2 sentences2018As further explained by the Supreme Court in Badeaux v. Southwest Computer Bureau, Inc. , 2005-0612, 2005-719, pp. 6-7 (La. 3/17/06), 929 So.2d 1211 , 1217, The function of an exception of no right of action is a determination of whether plaintiff belongs to the class of persons to whom the law grants the cause of action asserted in the petition. 2015The Supreme Court also discussed the function of an exception of no cause of action and stated that an exception of no cause of action “questions whether the law extends a remedy against the defendant to anyone under the factual allegations of the petition.” 05-0612, 05-719, p. 7, 929 So.2d at 1217 . | 28 | 2006–2023 |
Darville v. Texaco, Inc.
green
2 sentences2014Darville v. Texaco, Inc., 447 So.2d 473 (La.1984). 2014Darville v. Texaco, Inc., 447 So.2d 473 (La.1984). | 23 | 1993–2014 |
Ramey v. DeCaire
green
2 sentences2025Ramey, 869 So. 2d at 118 . 2024Ramey, 869 So. 2d at 118 . | 15 | 2006–2025 |
Reese v. STATE DEPT. OF PUBLIC SAFETY
green
2 sentences2016La.C.C.P. art. 681 states “[e]xcept as otherwise provided by law, an action can be brought only by a person having a real and actual interest which he asserts.” “The function of an exception of no right of action is to determine whether the plaintiff belongs to the class of persons to whom the law grants the cause of action | ^asserted in the suit.” Reese v. State, Dept. of Public Safety & Corrections, 2003-1615 (La. 2/20/04), 866 So.2d 244, 246 ; See La. 2011DISCUSSION "The function of an exception of no right of action is to determine whether *1239 the plaintiff belongs to the class of persons to whom the law grants the cause of action asserted in the suit." Reese v. State, Dept. of Public Safety & Corrections, 08-1615, pp. 2-3 (La.2/20/04), 866 So.2d 244, 246 . | 12 | 2011–2023 |
Turner v. Busby
green
2 sentences2014The Louisiana Supreme Court defines the function of this exception as “a determination of whether plaintiff belongs to the class of persons to whom the law grants the cause of action asserted in the petition” and explained that it “serves to question whether the plaintiff in the particular case is a member of the class of persons that has a legal interest in the subject matter of the litigation.” Badeaux v. Southwest Computer Bureau, Inc., 05-0612, 05-0719, pp. 6-7 (La.3/17/06), 929 So.2d 1211, 1217 , citing Turner v. Busby, 03-3444, p. 4 (La.9/9/04), 883 So.2d 412, 415 . 2011The Louisiana Supreme Court in Badeaux v. Southwest Computer Bureau, Inc., 05-0612, 05-0719,4 p. 6 (La.3/17/06), 929 So.2d 1211, 1217 , defined the function of that exception as “a determination of whether plaintiff belongs to the class of persons to whom the law grants the cause of action asserted in the petition” and explained that it “serves to question whether the plaintiff in the particular case is a member of the class of persons that has a legal interest in the subject matter of the litigation.” (citing Turner v. Busby, 03-3444, p. 4 (La.9/9/04), 883 So.2d 412, 415 ). | 5 | 2009–2026 |
Rico v. Cappaert Manufactured Housing, Inc.
neutral
2 sentences2018Rico v. Cappaert Manufactured Hous., Inc., 05-141 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/1/05) , 903 So.2d 1284 . 2018Rico v. Cappaert Manufactured Hous., Inc., 05-141 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/1/05) , 903 So.2d 1284 . | 5 | 2014–2018 |
Tri-State Sand & Gravel, LLC v. Cox
green
2 sentences2006Louisiana Paddlewheels v. Louisiana Riverboat Gaming Commission, 94-2015 (La.11/30/94), 646 So.2d 885 ; Jones, supra; Tri-State Sand & Gravel, L.L.C. v. Cox, 38,217 (La.App.2d Cir.04/07/04), 871 So.2d 1253 , writ denied, 04-1357 (La.09/24/04), 882 So.2d 1144 . 2005Louisiana Paddlewheels v. Louisiana Riverboat Gaming Commission, 94-2015 (La.11/30/94), 646 So.2d 885 ; Jones, supra; Tri-State Sand & Gravel, L.L.C. v. Cox, 38,217 (La.App. 2d Cir.04/07/04), 871 So.2d 1253 , writ denied, 04-1357 (La.09/24/04), 882 So.2d 1144 . | 5 | 2005–2006 |
Smith v. ROY O. MARTIN LUMBER COMPANY
green
2 sentences2006Louisiana Paddlewheels v. Louisiana Riverboat Gaming Commission, 94-2015 (La.11/30/94), 646 So.2d 885 ; Jones, supra; Tri-State Sand & Gravel, L.L.C. v. Cox, 38,217 (La.App.2d Cir.04/07/04), 871 So.2d 1253 , writ denied, 04-1357 (La.09/24/04), 882 So.2d 1144 . 2005Louisiana Paddlewheels v. Louisiana Riverboat Gaming Commission, 94-2015 (La.11/30/94), 646 So.2d 885 ; Jones, supra; Tri-State Sand & Gravel, L.L.C. v. Cox, 38,217 (La.App. 2d Cir.04/07/04), 871 So.2d 1253 , writ denied, 04-1357 (La.09/24/04), 882 So.2d 1144 . | 5 | 2005–2006 |
YOLANDA v. Robert
green
2 sentences2017Yolanda F.B. v. Robert D.R., 00-958 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/6/00) ; 775 So.2d 1107 . 2016Yolanda F.B. v. Robert D.R., 00-958 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/6/00) , 775 So.2d 1107 . | 4 | 2002–2017 |
DiLeo v. Hansen
green
2 sentences2022Id. 2014Id. | 2 | 2014–2022 |
State v. Sims
neutral
2 sentences2019Id. , citing Guidry v. Hanover Ins. 2019Id. , citing Guidry v. Hanover Ins. | 2 | 2019–2019 |
Jackson v. City of New Orleans
green
2 sentences2018Jackson v. City of New Orleans , 12-2742 (La. 1/28/14), 144 So.3d 876 , 895. 2018Jackson v. City of New Orleans , 12-2742 (La. 1/28/14), 144 So.3d 876 , 895. | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Jones v. Bethard
neutral
2 sentences2006Louisiana Paddlewheels v. Louisiana Riverboat Gaming Comm'n, 94-2015 (La.11/30/94), 646 So.2d 885 ; Jones v. Bethard, 39,575 (La.App.2d Cir.4/13/05), 900 So.2d 1081 ; Elmore v. Kelly, 39,080 (La. 2005Louisiana *1234 Paddlewheels v. The Louisiana Riverboat Gaming Commission, 94-2015 (La.11/30/94), 646 So.2d 885 ; Jones v. Bethard, 39,575 (La.App.2d Cir.4/13/05), 900 So.2d 1081 . | 2 | 2005–2006 |
Wischer v. Madison Realty Company
green
2 sentences2005Wischer v. Madison Realty Company, Inc., 231 La. 704, 709-710 , 92 So.2d 589 (1956). 2005Wischer v. Madison Realty Company, Inc., 231 La. 704, 709-710 , 92 So.2d 589 (1956). | 2 | 1982–2005 |
Favrot v. Favrot
green
2 sentences1994Favrot v. Favrot, 448 So.2d 187 (La.App. 1st Cir.1984). 1989Favrot v. Favrot, 448 So.2d 187 (La.App. 1 Cir.1984). | 2 | 1989–1994 |
Watkins v. Louisiana High School Athletic Ass'n
green
2 sentences1991Watkins v. Louisiana High School Athletic Assn., 301 So.2d 695 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1974). 1982Bielkiewicz v. Rudisill, 201 So.2d 136 (La.App.3rd Cir. 1967) and the authorities therein cited; Wischer v. Madison Realty Co., 231 La. 704 , 92 So.2d 589 (1956); Watkins v. Louisiana High School Athletic Association, 301 So.2d 695 (La.App.3rd Cir. 1974); Terrell v. Messenger, 383 So.2d 128 (La.App.3rd Cir. 1980). | 2 | 1982–1991 |
| Grubbs v. Haven Custom Furnishings, LLC green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Jenkins v. Jackson green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| Private Connection Property, Inc. v. Fox Cars, LLC green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| Marcus Miller v. Harold Thibeaux,lafayette Parish School Board and American Alternative Insurance Corporation green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| Payne v. Orleans Parish School Bd. neutral | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Cole v. Cole green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Gunasekara v. City of New Orleans green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Meckstroth v. La. Dept. of Transp. and Dev. green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Fontenot v. Southern Energy Homes, Inc. green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Randy Landry Homes, LLC v. Giardina green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Crooks v. Louisiana Pacific Corp. green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Boohaker green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| State ex rel. K.C.C. green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Bayou Lib. Ass'n v. St. Tammany Par. Coun. green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Stassi v. State green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Foret v. Caruso neutral | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Oakville Community v. Plaquemines Parish green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Robertson v. Sun Life Financial green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Show-Me Construction, LLC v. Wellington Specialty Insurance Co. green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Thomas v. State green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Lutz Oil & Gas, LLC v. Pride Energy Co. green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Thomas v. State green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Touzet v. VSM Seafood Services, Inc. green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Raspanti v. Litchfield green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.