Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Douglas Public Service Corp. v. Gaspard, 74 So. 2d 182.

24 citing documents.

Maggio v. Maggio 981 So. 2d 55 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
LeSabre Corp. v. Barnette 411 So. 2d 739 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
In its original brief filed in this Court, , (1954); Godchaux Sugars v. Chaisson, 227 La.
Good Hope Refineries, Inc. v. Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers, Local 4-447 400 So. 2d 865 La. 1981
Relying on this court’s , 74 So,2d 182 (1954) and Godchaux Sugars, Inc. v. Chaisson, 227 La.
Baton Rouge Etc. v. Gen. Truck, Etc. 403 So. 2d 632 La. 1981
The Court of Appeal affirmed, , (1954).
Vincent v. Romagosa 390 So. 2d 270 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
Plaintiff cites Godchaux Sugars v. Ockman Godchaux Sugars, Inc., as cases holding that certain statutes creating required pre-suit administrative procedures violated the constitutional grant of original jurisdiction to the district courts.
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
4th Cir., 1980); , (1954); Godchaux Sugars v. Chaisson, 227 La.
Payne & Keller Gulf Coast, Inc. v. American Federation of Unions, Local 102 393 So. 2d 141 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
for an interpretation and restriction of the effect of this statute.
Good Hope Refineries, Inc. v. OIL, CHEMICAL ETC. 386 So. 2d 378 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
(1954), the Supreme Court of this state was presented with its first confrontation between the provisions of the anti-injunction statutes, R.S.
City of New Orleans v. Police Ass'n of Louisiana, Teamsters Local No. 253 371 So. 2d 638 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
Everett v. Goldman 359 So. 2d 1256 La. 1978
780 , 28 L.Ed.2d 113 (1971); , (1954).
Something Irish Co. v. Rack 333 So. 2d 773 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
which involved dissolution of a temporary restraining order and dismissal of plaintiff's suit for a preliminary injunction in a labor dispute: "For the courts to function in an orderly manner, and with equal protection to all, the Constitution not having provided otherwise, it became necessary for the
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
146 , (1955), wherein the Supreme Court, through Fournet, C. J., said: “In the Douglas Public Service Corp. case [ , (1954)] 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 trenching upon the constitutional prerogatives of the
Independent Oil & Chemical Workers' Union v. Shell Oil Co. 150 So. 2d 102 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
Barksdale & LeBlanc v. Local No. 130, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers 143 So. 2d 770 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
the Supreme Court of this State as did the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Garner v. Teamsters, Chauffeurs and Helpers, etc., supra, recognized an exception to the exclusivity of the jurisdiction of the N.L.R.B.
Toomer v. LOCAL NO. 995, INTERNAT'L BRO. OF ELEC. WKRS. 131 So. 2d 248 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
Godchaux Sugars v. Chaisson, 227 La.
New Orleans Opera Guild, Inc. v. Local 174, Musicians Mutual Protective Union 127 So. 2d 358 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
Teamsters Local Union No. 5 v. Tasty Baking Co. 124 So. 2d 355 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
anting of relief, — and thereby require plaintiff to gather information almost exclusively within the knowledge of defendants without whose help it would be impracticable or perhaps even impossible to gather, and from whom hindrance and obstruction, rather than cooperation, could be reasonably anticipated, —would be tantamount to a denial of relief.” , .
Roksvaag v. Reily 113 So. 2d 285 La. 1959
148 , , 14 A.L.R.2d 680 ; Twiggs v. Journeymen Barbers, etc., La.App., ; , ; Godchaux Sugars, Inc. v. Chaisson, 227 La.
United Mines Workers v. Arkansas Oak Flooring Co. 113 So. 2d 899 La. 1959
This section, which has been declared unconstitutional (see Twiggs v. Journeymen Barbers, Etc., La.App., ; , and Godchaux Sugars v. Chaisson, 227 La.
Mirabeau Food Store v. Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butchers' Workmen of North America, Local Union No. 437 89 So. 2d 392 La. 1955
it was declared: “The right of a laborer to his hire and to organize for the promotion of better wages and working conditions is, in our opinion, as absolute and essential to the pursuit of happiness as is his right to freedom of speech, religion, and to life and liberty itself, — all recognized
Arkansas Oak Flooring Co. v. United Mine Workers of America 81 So. 2d 413 La. 1955
Counsel for appellants, with respect to the third specification of error urged, concedes in brief that since the trial of this case on the merits the Douglas Public Service [ , ], and Godchaux Sugars, Inc., cases have been decided adversely to his contention that the state is without right under Louisiana law to enjoin peaceful picketing, but he contends that in so holding we violated a cardinal rule of constitutional construction in that we invalidated the state’s anti-i
Hanson v. International Union of Operating Eng. 79 So. 2d 199 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
with Chief Justice Fournet as the organ of the Court, in considering an exception of no right of action predicated on the same contention as made in this case, the Supreme Court stated: "A perusal of the petition shows the exception of no right of action, predicated on the contention that petitio
Godchaux Sugars, Inc. v. Chaisson 78 So. 2d 673 La. 1955
This issue under an identical factual situation 8 , .