Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Hoag v. State, 889 So. 2d 1019.

84 citing documents.

St. Bernard Port, Harbor & Terminal District v. Guy Hopkins Construction Co. 220 So. 3d 6 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
12/1/04), ; Jones v. Traylor, 94-2520 (La.
Hatcher v. Rouse 211 So. 3d 431 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
Lens v. Landrieu 206 So. 3d 1245 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST PARISH SCHOOL BOARD v. STATE of Louisiana, Et Al. 213 So. 3d 384 La. 2016
Wallace C. Drennan, Inc. v. St. Charles Parish 202 So. 3d 535 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
DeJean v. Purpera 199 So. 3d 11 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2016
Const, art. [7], § 10(A); Hoag v. State, 04-0857 (La.12/1/04), .
Dynamic Constructors, L.L.C. v. Plaquemines Parish Government 173 So. 3d 1239 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
4 Cir. 8/24/11), , 459 quoting (Hoag v. State, 04-0857, p. 6 (12/1/04), ).
Goux v. St. Tammany Parish Government 156 So. 3d 714 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
If a public officer is vested with any element of discretion, mandamus will not lie.” Hoag v. State, 2004-0857, p. 7 (La.12/1/04), (citations omitted).
Moore v. City of Monroe 147 So. 3d 288 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
Hoag v. State, 04-0857 (La.12/1/04), .
Uletom Hewitt v. Lafayette Municipal Fire & Police Civil Service Board La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
12/1/04), which discusses the requirements for issuance of a writ of mandamus: Mandamus, codified in La.Code Civ.
Hewitt v. Lafayette Municipal Fire & Police Civil Service Board 139 So. 3d 1213 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Hewitt cites Hoag v. State, 04-857, p. 6 (La.12/1/04), , which discusses the requirements for issuance of a writ of mandamus: Mandamus, codified in La.
Humane Society of New Orleans v. Landrieu 135 So. 3d 1195 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, to be applied where ordinary means fail to afford adequate relief.’ Hoag v. State, 040857, p. 6 (La.12/01/04), .
New Orleans Fire Fighters Pension & Relief Fund v. City of New Orleans 131 So. 3d 412 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
Separation of powers Relying heavily on Hoag v. State, 04-0857 (La.12/1/04), , the City argues that it “cannot be judicially ordered to expend funds outside of the normal budgetary process” and that the trial court’s issuance of a mandamus violates the separation of powers doctrine.
Llopis v. Louisiana State Board of Dentistry 121 So. 3d 1280 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
“The function of the peremptory exception of no cause of action is to question whether the law extends a remedy against the defendant under the factual allegations of the petition.” Hoag v. State, 2004-0857, p. 9 (La.12/1/04), .
Foster Construction, Inc. v. Town of Richwood 117 So. 3d 607 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
Newman Marchive Partnership, Inc. v. City of Shreveport, 2007-1890 (La.4/8/08), ; Hoag v. State, 2004-0857 (La.12/1/04), ; Heath v. City of Alexandria, 2010-280 (La.App.
Aberta, Inc. v. Atkins 89 So. 3d 1161 La. 2012
This Court has explained that “mandamus will only issue where the action sought to be compelled is ministerial in nature, i.e., where it contains no element of discretion.” Newman Marchive Partnership, Inc. v. City of Shreveport, 07-1890 (La.4/8/08), ; Hoag v. State, 04-0857 (La.12/1/04), .
A.M.E. Disaster Recovery Services, Inc. v. City of New Orleans 72 So. 3d 454 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
A writ of mandamus is “an extraordinary remedy, to be applied where ordinary means fail to afford adequate relief.” Hoag v. State, 04-0857, p. 6 (La.12/01/04), .
Lyons v. TERREBONNE PARISH CONSOLIDATED GOVERNMENT 68 So. 3d 1180 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
Hoag v. State, 04-0857, p. 9 (La.12/1/04), .
Gibson & Associates, Inc. v. State, Department of Transportation & Development 68 So. 3d 1128 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
Hoag v. State, 2004-0857 (La.12/1/04), -1024 .
Parish of St. Charles v. R.H. Creager, Inc. 55 So. 3d 884 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Delano Plantation v. June Lowrey La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
Delano Plantation v. Lowrey 10 So. 3d 260 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
State v. Hoag, 04-0857 (La.12/1/04), .
Stanford v. Town of Ball 999 So. 2d 304 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
Hoag v. State, XXXX-XXXX, p. 4 (La.12/1/04), .
Randy Stanford v. Town of Ball La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
Thus, “[t]his trichotomous branching of authority furnishes the basis for the existence of an inherent judicial power which the legislative and executive branches cannot abridge.” Hoag v. State, 2004-0857, p. 4 (La.12/1/04)
Henderson v. Bigelow 982 So. 2d 941 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
Const. art. VII, § 10(A); Hoag v. State, 04-0857 (La.12/1/04), .
Newman Marchive Partnership, Inc. v. City of Shreveport 979 So. 2d 1262 La. 2008
Hoag v. State, XXXX-XXXX, p. 4 (La.12/1/04), .
Barriere Const. v. Tangipahoa Parish Gov't 985 So. 2d 80 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
Hoag v. State, XXXX-XXXX, p. 9 (La.11/1/04), .
In Re Belle Co., LLC 978 So. 2d 977 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
See Hoag v. State, 04-0857, p. 4 (La.12/1/04), .
Carter v. DIV. AE, G & I OF 14TH JUD. DIS. 972 So. 2d 457 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
See Hoag v. State, 04-857, p. 6 (La.12/1/04), .
Hon. Wilford D. Carter v. Honorable Judges, Divs. A-E & I of 14th Judicial District La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
Newman v. City of Shreveport 962 So. 2d 1075 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
As provided by the supreme court in Hoag v. State of Louisiana, 04-0857 (La.12/01/04), , 1024-1025: The act which plaintiffs seek court intervention to accomplish is not ministerial because by its very nature, the act of appropriation is discretionary.
Colvin v. LOUISIANA PATIENT'S COMP. FUND 947 So. 2d 15 La. 2007
Hoag v. State, 04-0857, p. 7 (La.12/01/04), .
Jones v. STATE BD. OF ELEM. AND SECOND. ED. 927 So. 2d 426 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
1st Cir.6/29/98), , writ denied, 98-2023 (La.11/13/98), and the Louisiana Supreme Court's decision in Hoag v. State, 04-0857 (La.12/1/04), .
Cox v. Boggs 899 So. 2d 770 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
Hoag v. State, XXXX-XXXX (La.12/1/04), ; Fleet Fuel Inc. v. Mynex Inc., 38,696 (La.App.