Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Harris v. Pierce, 73 So. 2d 330.

15 citing documents.

Richland Parish Police Jury v. Debnam 92 So. 3d 487 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
Concerned, Citizens for Proper Planning, LLC v. Parish of Tangipahoa, 04-0270 (La.App.1st Cir.03/24/05)
Concerned Citizens v. Parish of Tangipahoa 906 So. 2d 660 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
INVESTMENT MGMT. SVCS., INC. v. Village of Folsom 808 So. 2d 597 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
[13] for a similar analysis in a suit instituted while the defendants were in the course of erecting a building complained of by the plaintiffs to be in violation of subdivision restrictive covenants.
Abshire v. Lafayette Parish School Bd. 619 So. 2d 103 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
Dore v. Jefferson Guar. Bank 543 So. 2d 560 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
Fitzwater v. Walker 281 So. 2d 790 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1973
Pearce v. Gunter 221 So. 2d 599 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
Fisher v. Smith 190 So. 2d 105 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
725 ; Harris v. Pierce, La.App., ).
Cloud v. Dyess 172 So. 2d 528 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1965
Harris v. Pierce, La.App.Orl., , appeal transferred, 224 La.
Cusimano v. Sigur 143 So. 2d 239 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
691 ; Harris v. Pierce, La.App., .” We conclude that there is enough evidence in the record to make out a prima facie case to support the issuance of the preliminary injunction.
Alphonse Mortgage Co. v. Saucier 138 So. 2d 849 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
691 ; Harris v. Pierce, La.App., .” After the preliminary injunction issued the defendant, Albert Saucier, Jr., probably realizing the defect in his original action to annul the judgment of June 2, 1961, filed an entirely new petition entitled “Action to Annul the Judgment Herein” and prays that the preliminary injunction remain in force.
Westside Transit Lines, Inc. v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. 135 So. 2d 278 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
588 ; Brooks v. Chinn, La.App., ; Harris v. Pierce, La.App., .
Abate v. Hebert 100 So. 2d 273 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
City of New Orleans v. Langenstein 91 So. 2d 114 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
691 ; Harris v. Pierce, La.App., .
Gamburg v. City of Alexandria 85 So. 2d 276 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1956
This principle was recognized in Harris v. Pierce, La.App., , relative to the removal of a construction erected in violation of a restrictive covenant affecting property in a subdivision of Jefferson Parish, wherein it was stated: "The general rule is that an injunction will issue only in its prohibitory form, but when a defendant obstructs plaintiff in the enjoyment of a