Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Burton v. Lester, 79 So. 2d 333.

28 citing documents.

Williams v. Manzella 21 So. 3d 1048 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Cf Burton v. Lester; , .
Liberty Mut. v. La. Ins. Rating Com'n 696 So. 2d 1021 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
Holtzclaw v. Falco, Inc. 355 So. 2d 1279 La. 1978
The other possible judicial remedy by which an insurer in a multiple claims case might adequately protect itselfa declaratory *1281 judgments actionwas summarily dismissed by the court in the Richard case because it had held, , (1955), that a declaratory judgments action was unavailable in tort suits.
Villa Del Rey Citizens Ass'n v. City of Baton Rouge 233 So. 2d 566 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
Burton v. Lester, supra [ , ]; State v. Board of Supervisors, supra [ 228 La.
Richard v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance 223 So. 2d 858 La. 1969
Theodos v. Bossier City, 232 La.
Transamerica Ins. Co. v. Whitney National Bank of New Orleans 206 So. 2d 500 La. 1968
art. 532; , (1955); Ferriday v. Middlesex Banking Co., 118 La.
Petition of Sewerage and Water Bd. of New Orleans 177 So. 2d 276 La. 1965
See the second clause of the second sentence of Article 1871 C.O.P., , (1955).
Hall v. Rosteet 169 So. 2d 903 La. 1964
Hall v. Rosteet 169 So. 2d 903 La. 1964
1 , ; , and other cases.
Head v. Department of Highways 166 So. 2d 346 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
Finn v. EMPLOYERS'LIABILITY ASSURANCE CORPORATION 141 So. 2d 852 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1962
In support of their proposition that the exercise by plaintiffs of the option to first sue the insurer alone constituted an irrevocable election of remedies and a waiver and abandonment of their rights against the tort-feasor, defendants cite the following cases: Emmco Insurance Co. v. Globe Indemnity Co., supra; , ; West v. Monroe Bakery, 217 La.
Baddock v. Louisiana State Department of Highways 142 So. 2d 448 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
Burton v. Lester, supra [ , ].” Also see Rogers v. Louisiana State Board of Optometry Examiners, La.App., .
Poynter v. Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York 140 So. 2d 42 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1962
13:4231) is to work a , , in which the Supreme Court held that the declaratory judgment act could not be invoked where any other remedy was available to the plaintiff.
Orleans Parish School Board v. Campbell 132 So. 2d 885 La. 1961
and Orleans Parish School Board v. City of New Orleans, 238 La.
Rogers v. LOUISIANA STATE BOARD OF OPTOMETRY EXAM. 126 So. 2d 628 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
The trial court's ruling to the effect that plaintiff is not entitled to declaratory relief in this isstance is based upon the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Declaratory Judgments Act in Burton v. Lester, 1955, , , where the Court said: "* * * At any rate, we do not believe that the statute should be employed as a substitute for the well-defined actions provided for in our Code of Practice or those which have been established by jurisprudence unless, by reason of the special circumstances
Erath Sugar Company v. Broussard 125 So. 2d 776 La. 1961
However, in our opinion, the court erroneously concluded: “Since under Code of Practice Articles 5 and 43-45 a petitory action is available to a non-possessor claiming recognition of his title against one in possession of the property claimed, the trial court held that the plaintiff could not proceed by a declaratory judgment action and dismissed the plaintiff’s, suit, , .
McGuffy v. Weil 125 So. 2d 154 La. 1960
Murphy v. Marino, La.App., ; , ; Smith v. Smith, supra; Prince v. Hopson, 230 La.
Erath Sugar Co. v. Broussard 120 So. 2d 544 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
Since under Code of Practice Articles S and 43-45 a petitory action is available to a non-possessor claiming recognition of his title against one in possession of the property claimed, the trial court held that the plaintiff could not proceed by a declaratory judgment action and dismissed the plaintiff’s suit, , .
Orleans Parish School Board v. Campbell 126 So. 2d 82 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
Orleans Parish School Board v. City of New Orleans 116 So. 2d 509 La. 1959
Roberts v. City of Baton Rouge 108 So. 2d 111 La. 1958
1 , ; , , and Lacy v. Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Co. of Wisconsin, 233 La.
Slicho v. City of New Orleans 103 So. 2d 454 La. 1958
Superior Oil Co. v. Reily 100 So. 2d 888 La. 1958
47:1576, which provides: “In such action, service of process upon the collector shall be sufficient service, and he shall be the sole necessary and proper party defendant in any such suit.” , , discussed at length the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act of Louisiana and therein said that whether the relief sought will be granted is a matter of judicial discretion to be determined after considering the case on its own peculiar facts.
Lacy v. Employers Mutual Liability Ins. Co. of Wis. 98 So. 2d 162 La. 1957
Theodos v. Bossier City 95 So. 2d 825 La. 1957
no uncertain terms limited the use of the declaratory judgment act stating that “* * * the statute should not be employed as a substitute for the well-defined actions provided 1 for in our Code of Practice or those which have been established by jurisprudence unless, by reason of the special circumstances of the case, the codal procedure does not furnish an adequate remedy.” , 79 So.
Smith v. Smith 89 So. 2d 55 La. 1956
1 In support of this argument appellant relies on a , , to the effect that the Declaratory Judgments Act was never intended to supplant the ordinary procedures of Louisiana law.
Rushing v. Travelers Insurance Co. 85 So. 2d 298 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
See: Burton v. Lester, 1955, , ; United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Savoy Grill, 1936, 51 Ohio App. 504 , 1 N.E.2d 946 ; Maryland Casualty Co. v. Boyle Const. Co., 4 Cir., 1941, 123 F.2d 558 and Illinois Cent.
State v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, ETC. 84 So. 2d 597 La. 1955
we pointed out the significant difference between our procedural system and those employed in other States, resolving that the construction of the Declaratory Judgments Act should be consistent with the distinct background found in our jurisprudence which is predicated upon the provisions of the Code