Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Bielkiewicz v. Rudisill, 201 So. 2d 136.

113 citing documents.

Salling Wiping Cloth Co. v. Sewell, Inc. 419 So. 2d 112 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
McIlwain v. Manville Forest Products Corp. 416 So. 2d 954 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Frazier v. Green Steel Bldg., Inc. 409 So. 2d 1290 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
Gravois v. Ockmond 409 So. 2d 400 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
American Bank & Trust Company v. French, supra; (La.App.
Selber Bros., Inc. v. Bryant 406 So. 2d 251 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
Budd Const. Co., Inc. v. City of Alexandria 401 So. 2d 1070 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
Ditch v. Finkelstein 399 So. 2d 1216 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
Bowden v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins.
Callais Cablevision, Inc. v. Entron, Inc. 395 So. 2d 826 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
Smith v. Cajun Insulation, Inc. 392 So. 2d 398 La. 1980
Johnston v. Cummins 388 So. 2d 432 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1980
Johnson v. Edmonston 383 So. 2d 1277 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
First Municipal Leasing Corp. v. State 394 So. 2d 282 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
1st Cir. 1977), (La.App.
Clark v. Clark 377 So. 2d 544 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
Gustin v. Shows 377 So. 2d 1325 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
Curry v. Iberville Parish Sheriff's Office 378 So. 2d 159 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
the court stated: "The essential function of this exception is to provide a threshold device for terminating a suit brought by one without legal interest to assert it.
Louisiana Nat. Bank of Baton Rouge v. Heindel 365 So. 2d 37 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Soileau 357 So. 2d 563 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1978
3rd Cir. 1972); (La.App.
B & J Boats, Inc. v. Whitney 351 So. 2d 815 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
Cripe v. Haynes 350 So. 2d 956 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1977
Bamber Contractors, Inc. v. Henderson Bros., Inc. 345 So. 2d 1212 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
American Bank & Trust Company v. French, supra ; (La.App.
Parks v. Winnfield Life Insurance Company 336 So. 2d 1021 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
(3rd Cir. 1967); (3rd Cir. 1965); (3rd Cir. 1964) this Court held such evidence could be considered.
Desormeaux v. Central Industries, Inc. 333 So. 2d 431 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
Comet Drilling Co. v. Tri-State Oil Tool Industries, Inc. 337 So. 2d 567 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
Honeycutt v. Town of Boyce 327 So. 2d 154 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
Marionneaux v. King 331 So. 2d 180 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
Pons v. Pons 327 So. 2d 561 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
Davis v. Southern Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. 324 So. 2d 468 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
In Bielkiewicz *470 v. Rudisill, the Court said: "However, the exception of no right of action is not available to urge a defense to the effect that the plaintiff is without interest simply because the defendants have a defense to the plaintiff's action."
Weil v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 323 So. 2d 524 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
Savoie v. Bills 317 So. 2d 249 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
332 , (1948); Liberal Finance Gentilly, (1st Cir. La.App., 1963); McNabb v. Food Town, Inc., (1st Cir. La.App., 1962); (3rd Cir. La.App., 1963); (3rd Cir. La.App., 1967); G. J. Deville Lumber Company, (3rd Cir. La.App., 1975); (3rd Cir. La.App., 1975); (3rd Cir. La.App., 1975).
Magee v. T. Smith & Son, Inc. 319 So. 2d 489 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
for a discussion of the exception of no right of action.
Guillory v. Nicklos Oil & Gas Co. 315 So. 2d 878 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
4th Cir. 1975); (La.App.
Matthew v. Melton Truck Lines, Inc. 310 So. 2d 691 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
2285, 2286, 2287, 3556(31); Bielkiewicz v. Rudisill, La.App., , and cases therein cited.
Alside Supply Company v. Ramsey 306 So. 2d 762 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1975
Parkerson v. R-5, Inc. 305 So. 2d 592 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
3rd Cir. 1973); (La.App.
Watkins v. Louisiana High School Athletic Ass'n 301 So. 2d 695 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1974
The essential function of this exception is to provide a threshold device for terminating a suit brought by one without the legal capacity to file it or without the legal interest to assert it, (3rd Cir. 1967) and the authorities cited.
Machost v. Brown 298 So. 2d 109 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
Potter v. Brein 289 So. 2d 309 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
Hancock v. Lincoln American Life Insurance Co. 278 So. 2d 561 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
art. 3078; Bielkiewicz v. Rudisill, La.App., ; Bowden v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins.
Leatherman v. Parish of East Baton Rouge 275 So. 2d 806 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
Bielkiewicz v. Rudisill, La.App., .
Escat v. National Bank of Commerce in New Orleans 256 So. 2d 786 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Louisiana Tax Commission 251 So. 2d 392 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
(3d La.App., 1967) (1st La.App., 1970).
Meinerz v. Treybig 245 So. 2d 557 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1971
Port Arthur Towing Co. v. Leveque 247 So. 2d 595 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
Further, plaintiff interprets the Trial Court’s decision to be based on “extinguishment” of defendants’ obligation to offer the land to plaintiff under the option provision of the lease, , decided by this Court in 1967.
Invest, Incorporated v. State 247 So. 2d 175 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
The more recent decision of Bielkiewicz v. Rudisill, La.App., , is authority for the proposition that upon trial of an exception of no right of action, evidence is admissible to support or contradict the objections raised by the exception.
Dept. of Highways v. Capone 248 So. 2d 62 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
To the extent that the exception filed by defendant constitutes an exception of no cause of action, it is clear that for the purposes of such exception, the well-pleaded allegations of fact of plaintiff’s petition must be accepted as true, and no evidence may be introduced in support of such exception, (La.App.
Noel v. Noel 244 So. 2d 73 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
We note that our brothers of the Third Circuit, in the recent case of Bielkiewicz v. Rudisill, La.App., , have indicated that the exception of no right of action should be employed in any instance where the action is brought by a party without legal interest therein.
Geiger v. State, Department of Institutions 242 So. 2d 606 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
The exception urging no cause of action should be overruled when the allegations of the petition, which must be construed most favorably for the plaintiff, disclose a cause of action, with all doubts being resolved in favor of the sufficiency of the petition
West v. City of Ville Platte 237 So. 2d 730 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1970
Art. 927(5), Official Revision Comment (b) (5); (La.App.
Dale v. Nassar 240 So. 2d 775 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
3 Cir., 1967), ; also 14 Tulane Law Review 285.
All State Credit Plan Houma, Inc. v. Weidenbacher 234 So. 2d 774 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970