safe rule (Louisiana) · Go Syfert
← Louisiana issues

safe rule in Louisiana

7 Louisiana opinions name it 3 courts 1914–1995 0 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.

Followed or applied (2)

CaseFollowedCited
Oglesby v. Town of Winnfieldgreen
lactapp · 1946 · cited in 1 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 1970–1970
2 sentences

1970In Oglesby, supra, the court stated: "* * * The safe rule is to have the alleged nuisance judicially declared to be a nuisance and its abatement procured through processes of government orderly exercised.

1970It is only in cases of emergency that abatement of a nuisance may be accomplished without prior adjudication of a court authorizing such to be done, and even in such cases, the abatement is done at the actor's risk and peril." 27 So.2d at p. 142 (Emphasis added).

11
Bell v. Bruengreen
· 1843 · cited in 1 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 1934–1934
1 sentence

1934See, also, Bell v. Bruen, 1 How. 187 , 11 L.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (5)

CaseCitedYears
Continental Supply Co. v. Tuckerrose Oil Co. green
la · 1920
2 sentences

1937In the case of Continental Supply Co. v. Tucker-Rose Oil Co., 146 La. 671 , 83 So. 892, 893 , this court affirmed the doctrine laid down in the case of Menard v. Scudder, 7 La.Ann. 385 , 56 Am.Dec. 610, as follows: “A safe rule of construction of a guaranty is to give the instrument that effect which shall best accord with the intentions of the parties, as manifested by the terms of the guaranty, taken in connection with the subject-matter to which it relates, neither enlarging the words beyond their import in favor of the creditor, nor restricting them in the aid of the surety.” There could b

1937In the case of Continental Supply Co. v. Tucker-Rose Oil Co., 146 La. 671 , 83 So. 892, 893 , this court affirmed the doctrine laid down in the case of Menard v. Scudder, 7 La.Ann. 385 , 56 Am.Dec. 610, as follows: “A safe rule of construction of a guaranty is to give the instrument that effect which shall best accord with the intentions of the parties, as manifested by the terms of the guaranty, taken in connection with the subject-matter to which it relates, neither enlarging the words beyond their import in favor of the creditor, nor restricting them in the aid of the surety.” There could b

21937–1973
Menard v. Scudder green
la · 1852
2 sentences

1937In the case of Continental Supply Co. v. Tucker-Rose Oil Co., 146 La. 671 , 83 So. 892, 893 , this court affirmed the doctrine laid down in the case of Menard v. Scudder, 7 La.Ann. 385 , 56 Am.Dec. 610, as follows: “A safe rule of construction of a guaranty is to give the instrument that effect which shall best accord with the intentions of the parties, as manifested by the terms of the guaranty, taken in connection with the subject-matter to which it relates, neither enlarging the words beyond their import in favor of the creditor, nor restricting them in the aid of the surety.” There could b

1920“A safe rule of construction of a guaranty is to give the instrument that effect which shall best accord with the intentions of the parties, as manifested by the terms of the guaranty, taken in connection with the subject-matter to which it relates, neither enlarging the words beyond their import in favor of the creditor, nor restricting them in the aid of the surety.” Menard v. Scudder, 7 La.

21920–1937
Barry v. Walker neutral
· 1927
1 sentence

1995State v. Brunson, 111 So. 321 (La. 1927) .

11995–1995
Central Savings Bank & Trust Co. v. Hamilton neutral
lactapp · 1935
1 sentence

1973Continental Supply Co. v. Tucher-Rose [Tucker-Rose] Oil Co., 83 So. 892 , 146 La. 671 (1920); Central Savings Bank and Trust Company v. Hamilton, 161 So. 658 (La.App. 2nd cir. 1935).

11973–1973
Succession of Weigel neutral
la · 1869
1 sentence

1914I think the tenor of our decisions and practice goes to require that extent of evidence, and I believe it would be a safe rule to do so.”' In Huddleston v. Coyle, 21 La.

11914–1914

Where else courts name it

KS 40 (1903–2024) TX 39 (1878–2010) MI 23 (1862–2026) AL 19 (1875–2026) IL 17 (1886–2025) CA 17 (1885–2025) NC 15 (1887–2011) PA 15 (1835–1978) MO 11 (1897–1973) NY 11 (1865–2012) GA 11 (1884–2022) IA 10 (1869–2021) NE 9 (1896–1997) MD 9 (1897–2013) MS 9 (1857–1983) OK 7 (1897–1955) LA 7 (1914–1995) KY 6 (1892–1932) SD 6 (1892–1982) OR 5 (1942–1999) IN 5 (1878–1909) MN 5 (1891–1987) WA 4 (1910–1955) AR 4 (1889–1941) WV 4 (1893–1965) FL 4 (1847–1992) WI 3 (1882–1952) ID 3 (1908–1933) MT 3 (1923–1987) ND 3 (1918–1937) NH 2 (1891–1928) VA 2 (1923–1992) AZ 2 (1912–1970) DE 2 (1938–1946) ME 2 (1903–1913) CT 2 (1993–2016) CO 2 (1902–1902) VT 2 (2007–2007) OH 2 (1908–1990) TN 2 (1920–1963) SC 2 (1934–1939)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check