DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Roy O. Martin Lumber Co. v. Saint Denis Securities Co., 72 So. 2d 257.

42 citing documents.

  • Robert H. Rhyne, Jr. v. Omni Energy Services Corp. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
    “Generally speaking, an exception of no right of action serves to question the right of a plaintiff to maintain [the] suit.”
  • Rhyne v. Omni Energy Services Corp. 155 So. 3d 155 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    “Generally speaking, an exception of no right of action serves to question the right of a plaintiff to maintain [the] suit.” , (1954).
  • Touro Infirmary v. American Maritime Officer 24 So. 3d 948 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    842 , (1970); , (1954); Rheuark v. Terminal Mud & Chemical Co., 213 La.
  • Travis Lee Stevens v. Darren Keith Bruce La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    Denis Securities Co., So.2d 257 (1954), this Court distinguished the two exceptions as follows: ‘Generally speaking, an exception of no right of action serves to question the right of a plaintiff to maintain this suit, i.e., .
  • Stevens v. Bruce 878 So. 2d 734 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    Denis Securities Co., , (1954), this Court distinguished the two exceptions as follows: `Generally speaking, an exception of no right of action serves to question the right of a plaintiff to maintain this suit, i.e., ...
  • Donnaud's Inc. v. GULF COAST BANK AND TRUST 858 So. 2d 4 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
    Roy O. Martin Lumber Co. v. Saint Denis Securities Co., Inc., , -59 (La.1954); Atchley v. Atchley, 97-474 (La.App.
  • Powell v. Dorris 814 So. 2d 763 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
    Denis Securities Co., , (1954), this Court distinguished the two exceptions as follows: "Generally speaking, an exception of no right of action serves to question the right of a plaintiff to maintain this suit, i.e., ...
  • Atchley v. Atchley 707 So. 2d 458 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
    Roy O. Martin Lumber Co. v. Saint Denis Securities Co., Inc., , -59 (La.1954) (citations omitted).
  • Alexander & Alexander, Inc. v. STATE EX REL. DIV. OF ADMIN. 486 So. 2d 95 La. 1986
    Denis Securities Co., 225 La.51, (1954), this Court distinguished the two exceptions as follows: "Generally speaking, an exception of no right of action serves to question the right of a plaintiff to maintain this suit, i.e, ...
  • Maxwell v. Wester 464 So. 2d 816 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    3rd Cir.1975), writ denied Roy O. Martin Lumber Co., Inc. v. Saint Denis Securities Co., Inc., , (1954).
  • Teachers'retirement System v. La. St. Employees Retirement System 456 So. 2d 594 La. 1984
    Denis Securities Co., , (1954)).
  • Chauvin v. Bohn 411 So. 2d 442 La. 1982
    See also, , (1954); writ refused, (1977); writ refused, (1975).
  • Gomez V. Farmers Export Co. 363 So. 2d 538 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
    (1954); Babineaux v. Pernie-Bailey Drilling Co., 261 La.
  • Sick v. Bendix-United Geophysical Corp. 341 So. 2d 1308 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    (1954) as follows: "Generally speaking, an exception of no right of action serves to question the right of a plaintiff to maintain his suit, i. e., his capacity to sue or his interest in the subject matter of the proceeding, whereas an exception of no cause of action addresses itself to the sufficiency
  • Klotz v. Gertrude Gardner, Inc. 293 So. 2d 601 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1974
  • Hargroder v. Columbia Gulf Transmission Co. 290 So. 2d 874 La. 1974
    Denis Securities Co., , (1954), this Court distinguished the two exceptions as follows: "Generally speaking, an exception of no right of action serves to question the right of a plaintiff to maintain this suit, i. e., .
  • State v. Placid Oil Company 274 So. 2d 402 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
    Denis Securities Company, , (1964); Kline v. Dawson, 230 La.
  • Sterling v. Jones 233 So. 2d 537 La. 1970
  • Advertiser, Division of Independent Inc. v. Tubbs 208 So. 2d 340 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1968
    Denis Securities Co., , (1954); Loyola U. Radio-WWL-TV v. Lakeside Rambler Sales, Inc., , La.App.
  • Joseph v. Tri Parish Flying Service, Inc. 201 So. 2d 321 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
    Denis Securities Company, , (1964); Kline v. Dawson, 230 La.
  • American Insurance Co. v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. 198 So. 2d 757 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
    Barr v. Freeman, La.App., ; , ; Williams v. Marionneaux, 240 La.
  • Pflieger v. Haws 180 So. 2d 892 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
    the Supreme Court of Louisiana, in considering a complaint of counsel for the plaintiff that the trial judge was without authority to consider, on the hearing of the exception of no right of action, evidence showing that Jones was without power to offer to sell the real property belonging to defendant
  • Barr v. Freeman 175 So. 2d 649 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1965
    as follows: “ * * * Generally speaking, an exception of no right of action serves to question the right of a plaintiff to maintain his suit, i. e., his capacity to sue or his interest in the subject matter of the proceeding, whereas an exception of no cause of action addresses itself to the sufficienc
  • Breaux v. Pan American Petroleum Corporation 163 So. 2d 406 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1964
    713 , ; , ; and Rheuark v. Terminal Mud & Chemical Co., 213 La.
  • Georgia Pacific Corp. v. B.G.M. Builders 154 So. 2d 78 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
    Denis Securities Co., , : “Generally speaking, an exception of no right of action serves to question the right of a plaintiff to maintain his suit, i. e., his capacity to sue or his interest in the subject matter of the proceeding, whereas an exception of no cause of action addresses itself to the sufficiency in law of the pet
  • Keen v. Lirocchi 153 So. 2d 134 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
    The jurisprudence of our State defines the difference between exceptions of no right of action and no cause of action: , at 258-259 (1954) the Louisiana Supreme Court said: “Generally speaking, an exception of no right of action serves to question the right of a plaintiff to maintain his suit, i. e., his capacity to sue or his interest in the subject matter of the proceeding, whereas an exception of no cause of action ad
  • West v. Carbone 150 So. 2d 37 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1963
  • Heirs of Boagni v. Thornton 132 So. 2d 494 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
    2d 631 ; Roy O. Martin Lumber Co., , .
  • Fister v. Fister 131 So. 2d 103 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
    App., , , , Kline v. Dawson, 230 La.
  • West v. Carbone 126 So. 2d 416 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
    In the case of Martin Lumber Co. v. Saint Denis Securities Co., Inc., 1954, , , 260 rehearing denied, the facts were that defendant, -through its president, made a written offer to sell-the real property involved in the suit.
  • Williams v. Marionneaux 124 So. 2d 919 La. 1960
  • Clark v. Town of Mandeville 105 So. 2d 313 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
    at pages 258-259: “ ‘Generally speaking, an exception of no right of action serves to question the right of a plaintiff to maintain his suit, i. e., his capacity to sue or his interest in the subject matter of the proceeding, whereas an exception of no cause of action addresses itself to the sufficien
  • Patterson v. City of De Ridder 103 So. 2d 68 La. 1958
    ns voting and to question them as to their names as they entered when the law prevents such action within polling places upon election day.” The trial judge, in a well considered opinion, while recognizing that the well pleaded facts must be accepted as true for purposes of disposing of the exception filed by the defendant city and district ( , ; Ane v. Ane, 225 La.
  • Maggio v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. 102 So. 2d 505 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
    587 , at page 588; cf. also, , .
  • Johnston v. City of New Orleans 101 So. 2d 206 La. 1958
    221 , ; , ; and Wischer v. Madison Realty Company, Inc., 231 La.
  • Richard v. National Surety Corporation 99 So. 2d 831 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
    at pages 258-259: "`Generally speaking, an exception of no right of action serves to question the right of a plaintiff to maintain his suit, i. e., his capacity to sue or his interest in the subject matter of the proceeding, whereas an exception of no cause of action addresses itself to the sufficienc
  • Maryland Casualty Co. v. Gulf Refining Co. 95 So. 2d 734 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
    Denis Securities Co., , .
  • Wischer v. Madison Realty Company 92 So. 2d 589 La. 1956
    we said: “ * * * Generally speaking, an exception of no right of action serves to question the right of a plaintiff to maintain his suit, i. e., his capacity to sue or his interest in the subject matter of the proceeding, whereas an exception of no cause of action addresses itself to the sufficie
  • Green v. STATE, DEPT. OF HWYS. 91 So. 2d 153 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
    Outdoor Electric Advertising, Inc., v. Saurage, 207 La.
  • Kline v. Dawson 89 So. 2d 385 La. 1956
  • Liquefied Petroleum Gas Commission v. E. R. Kiper Gas Corp. 86 So. 2d 518 La. 1956
  • Leteff v. Maryland Casualty Co. 82 So. 2d 80 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
    at pages 258-259: "Generally speaking, an exception of no right of action serves to question the right of a plaintiff to maintain his suit, i. e., his capacity to sue or his interest in the subject matter of the proceeding, whereas an exception of no cause of action addresses itself to the sufficiency