Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Prator v. Caddo Parish, 888 So. 2d 812.

19 citing documents.

Hon. Robert E. Jones, III, Administrative Judge, and Hon. Paul N. Sens, Hon. Charlene Larch Mason, Hon. Mark … La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2026
12/1/04), (citation omitted).
Professor Ken M. Levy v. Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University and A&M College La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2025
Dr. Stephen Enwefa and Dr. Regina Enwefa v. Board of Supervisors of Southern University and A&M College La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2025
In re Jelks 209 So. 3d 854 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
Thornton v. Carthon 114 So. 3d 554 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
Prator v. Caddo Parish, 04-0794 (La.12/1/04), ; Louisiana Supreme Court Committee on Bar Admissions ex rel.
Code v. Department of Public Safety & Corrections 103 So. 3d 1118 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
However, a justiciable controversy has been broadly defined as one involving “adverse parties with opposing claims ripe for judicial determination,” involving “specific adversarial questions asserted by interested parties based on existing facts.” Prator v. Caddo Parish, 2004-0794, p. 6 (La.12/1/04), .
Vizzi v. Lafayette City-Parish Consolidated Government 93 So. 3d 1260 La. 2012
See e.g., State v. Citizen, 04-1841 (La.4/1/05), (funding for indigent defense); Prator v. Caddo Parish, 04-0794 (La.12/1/04), (dispute between parish and sheriff over funding obligations at parish correctional center); State v. Craig, 93-2515 (La.5/23/94), (funding for indigent defendants’ expert witnesses and investigative services in capital cases); (funding for indigent defense); State
Louisiana Federation of Teachers v. State 94 So. 3d 760 La. 2012
Prator v. Caddo Parish, 04-794, p. 5 (La.12/1/04), .
In re Lorusso 85 So. 3d 712 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
It has been generally defined as a dispute between “adverse parties with opposing claims ripe for judicial determination,” involving “specific adversarial questions asserted by interested parties , based on existing facts.” Prator v. Caddo Parish, 2004-0794, p. 6 (La.12/1/04), .
Steiner v. Reed 57 So. 3d 1188 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
It has been generally defined as a dispute between “adverse parties with opposing claims ripe for judicial determination,” involving “specific adversarial questions asserted by interested parties based on existing facts.” Prator v. Caddo Parish, 04-0794, pp. 5-6 (La.12/1/04), .
Floyd v. East Bank Consolidated Fire Protection District 40 So. 3d 160 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2010
See: Prator v. Caddo Parish, 04-0794, p. 7 (La.12/1/04), .
In Re Melancon 935 So. 2d 661 La. 2006
[4] See discussion of this requirement, Prator v. Caddo Parish, 04-0794, pp. 5-6 (La.12/1/04), -816 .
Chauvin v. Wellcheck, Inc. 938 So. 2d 114 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
Prator v. Caddo Parish, 04-0794, p. 6 (La.12/1/04), .
Wooley v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Ins. Co. 928 So. 2d 618 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
Indeed, the supreme court has specifically directed us to consider its opinion in Prator v. Caddo Parish, 04-0794 (La.12/1/04), , addressing the subject of justiciable controversies in a declaratory judgment action.
Gerald Bordelon v. Fulcrum Insurance Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
Bordelon v. Fulcrum Insurance Co. 903 So. 2d 1202 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
Prator v. Caddo Parish, 04-794 (La.12/1/04), .
Marionneaux v. Hines 902 So. 2d 373 La. 2005
Prator v. Caddo Parish, 04-0794, pp. 5-9 (La.12/1/04), -817 .
Prator v. Caddo Parish 900 So. 2d 350 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
See Prator v. Caddo Parish, 2004-0794 (La.12/01/04), .
Wooley v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Ins. Co. 893 So. 2d 746 La. 2005
The court of appeal is specifically referred to this court's recent opinion in Prator v. Caddo Parish, 04-0794 (La.12/1/04), , and asked to determine whether the Commissioner is entitled to seek declaratory judgment regarding the issue of whether State Farm's RCU policy form, as submitted, complies with the applicable laws.