Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite City of Baton Rouge v. Rebowe, 75 So. 2d 239.

19 citing documents.

Harvey v. State 183 So. 3d 684 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
In connection with this argument, we note that “[n]o citizen has an inherent right to sell alcoholic beverages, and the business may be permitted under conditions such as will limit to the utmost the evils associated therewith.” Deer Enterprises, L.L.C. v. Parish Council of Washington Parish, 2010-0671, p. 10 (La.1/19/11), , , (1954).
Deer Enterprises, LLC v. Parish Council of Washington Parish 56 So. 3d 936 La. 2011
No citizen has an inherent right to sell alcoholic beverages, and “the business may be permitted under conditions such as will limit to the utmost the evils associated therewith.” , (1954).
Toups v. City of Shreveport 37 So. 3d 406 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
State v. Larson 653 So. 2d 1158 La. 1995
Peek v. Alcohol Beverage Control Bd. 434 So. 2d 1266 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
(1954); State v. Morton, 182 La.
Brousseau's Inc. v. City of Baton Rouge 400 So. 2d 1188 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
(1954), rehearing denied 1954, the court upheld the validity of a city ordinance defining "closing hours" differently than state law.
City of Lafayette v. Butcher Air Conditioning Co. 392 So. 2d 757 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
396 , (1958); , (1954).” The purpose of the ordinance in question is to provide a system of controlling the installation, repair, maintenance, alteration and use of air conditioning, heating, mechanical refrigeration and ventilating systems within the city.
Shreveport Independent Retail Grocers Ass'n v. City of Shreveport 367 So. 2d 157 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
912 (1884); , (1954); State v. Trahan, 214 La.
City of Lake Charles v. Southern Pacific Transp. Co. 310 So. 2d 116 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
396 , (1958); City of Baton *124 , (1954)."
Manuel v. Evangeline Parish Police Jury 295 So. 2d 600 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
e court explained the rationale of these provisions of the statute as follows: “Obviously, the purpose of this proviso in the statute is to forbid the governing authorities of a parish or municipality to adopt such a stringent regulation of the retail liquor business as would amount to local prohibition, without a vote of the electors of the parish or municipality.” , (1954) involved an ordinance very similar to the one at issue in the present case, i. e., it prohibited the sale of intoxicating
City of Crowley Firemen v. City of Crowley 280 So. 2d 897 La. 1973
See, also, City of Baton *902 , (1954).
Hi-Lo Oil Company v. City of Crowley 274 So. 2d 757 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1973
City of Crowley Firemen v. City of Crowley 264 So. 2d 368 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
Sutton v. Caldwell, supra; , (1954); Shreveport v. Provenza 231 La.
McManemin v. Bossier Parish Police Jury 228 So. 2d 36 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
the court held: "The proposition is generally accepted that there is wo inherent right in a citizen to sell intoxicating liquor, and the business may be permitted under conditions such as will limit to the utmost the evils associated therewith.
Reynolds v. Louisiana Board of Alcoholic Beverage Control 181 So. 2d 377 La. 1965
Thibodeaux v. City of Sulphur 140 So. 2d 49 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
Dauenhauer v. City of Gretna, supra; City of De-Ridder v. Mangano, 186 La.
Randolph v. Village of Turkey Creek 126 So. 2d 341 La. 1961
is persuasive here, for there the ordinance “regulated” and did not “prohibit” generally and the ordinance did not transcend the restriction imposed by the general law of the State which permits regulation.
City of Lafayette v. Elias 95 So. 2d 281 La. 1957
this Court stated: “The proposition is generally accepted that there is no inherent right in a citizen to sell intoxicating liquor, and the business may be permitted under conditions such as will limit to the utmost the evils associated therewith.
City of Shreveport v. Provenza 91 So. 2d 777 La. 1956