Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Godchaux Sugars, Inc. v. Chaisson, 78 So. 2d 673.

15 citing documents.

LeSabre Corp. v. Barnette 411 So. 2d 739 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
972 , (1954); , (1955) and Goodhope Refineries, Inc. v. Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers International, Local 4-447, (La.App.
Good Hope Refineries, Inc. v. Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers, Local 4-447 400 So. 2d 865 La. 1981
972 , 74 So,2d 182 (1954) and Godchaux Sugars, , (1955), the court of appeal held that the unambiguous provisions of R.S.
Baton Rouge Etc. v. Gen. Truck, Etc. 403 So. 2d 632 La. 1981
Baton Rouge Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. General Truck Drivers, Warehousemen & Helpers Local Union No. 5 398 So. 2d 580 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
Good Hope Refineries, Inc. v. OIL, CHEMICAL ETC. 386 So. 2d 378 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
In reaffirming its position in the Douglas case, , (1955) stated: "In the Douglas Public Service Corp. case we held that the legislative statutes prescribing procedural rules for obtaining needful writs and processes would be upheld so long as they did not violate our basic law, but that such acts, whether procedural or substantive, infringing or t
Rust Engineering Co. v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America 210 So. 2d 154 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
American Cyanamid Co. v. Roberts 180 So. 2d 810 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1965
Furthermore, if the legislature had by implication intended to deny to persons enjoined the relief here sought, as argued by plaintiffs, , (1955), wherein the Supreme Court, through Fournet, C. J., said: “In the Douglas Public Service Corp. case [Douglas Public Service Corp. v. Gaspard, 225 La.
Toomer v. LOCAL NO. 995, INTERNAT'L BRO. OF ELEC. WKRS. 131 So. 2d 248 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
Roksvaag v. Reily 113 So. 2d 285 La. 1959
972 , ; Godchaux Sugars, , ; Arkansas Oak Flooring Co. v. United Mine Workers of America, 227 La.
United Mines Workers v. Arkansas Oak Flooring Co. 113 So. 2d 899 La. 1959
972 , , ), was inapplicable to the case and, hence, the injunction issued under the provisions of our general law, R.S.
La Rose v. Dufresne 99 So. 2d 16 La. 1958
In the casé of Godchaux Sugars, Inc., v. Chaisson, , , we recognized that time is of the essence in harvesting a sugar cane crop, because of the perishable nature of the crop and the emergencies of grinding.
Piegts v. AMALGAMATED MEAT CUTTERS, ETC. 81 So. 2d 835 La. 1955
985 ; Godchaux Sugars, Inc. v. Chaisson (South Coast Corporation v. Chaisson), , .
Piegts v. Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butchers' Workmen of North America, Local Union No. 437 81 So. 2d 835 La. 1955
985 ; Godchaux Sugars, Inc. v. Chaisson (South Coast Corporation v. Chaisson), , .
Arkansas Oak Flooring Co. v. United Mine Workers of America 81 So. 2d 413 La. 1955
As pointed out in the recent case of Godchaux Sugars, Inc., v. Chaisson, , , “To hold that an unincorporated group must be individually named and' cited before it is susceptible to restraint would be equivalent to holding that, by subterfuge of unincorporation, group action transcends individual rights and is unlimited and unrestrictable except within the purview of the c
Hanson v. International Union of Operating Eng. 79 So. 2d 199 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
In the case of Godchaux Sugars, Inc., v. Chaisson (South Coast Corporation v. Chaisson), rendered by the Supreme Court on January 10, 1955, , the same contention as we now have under consideration was made therein, viz.: "(1) that Local 317, an unincorporated association, and its members cannot be sued, served, or bound by suit against its individual members and officers in the absence of tortious acts; * * *" and the Supreme Court through Chief Justice F