Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Dore v. Tugwell, 84 So. 2d 199.

41 citing documents.

State Of Louisiana v. William Wayne Lee, Jr. La. 2023
So.2d 199 [(1955)], and the many authorities cited therein.
Anthony Chenevert and Cindy Langwell v. Rodney Lee Johnson, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
Harris v. Jefferson Parish President & Parish Council 119 So. 3d 603 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
807 , 813-14, two widows sought a mandamus to compel the State Auditor and State Treasurer to pay them widows’ pensions as required by statute.
Parish of Jefferson v. Kennedy 28 So. 3d 301 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2009
( So.2d 199 (1955) (La.App.
Greater New Orleans Expressway Commission v. Olivier 892 So. 2d 570 La. 2005
(1955), we revisited the issue of a public official’s standing to raise a constitutional challenge in a mandamus action seeking to compel the performance of statutory duties.
GREATER NEW ORLEANS EXP. COM'N v. Olivier 892 So. 2d 570 La. 2005
(1955), we revisited the issue of a public official's standing to raise a constitutional challenge in a mandamus action seeking to compel the performance of statutory duties.
Plaisance v. Davis 868 So. 2d 711 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Tugwell, , (1955) and State ex rel.
Scarlet C. Adams v. Temple Inland - Louisiana La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
2/20/95), ( So.2d 199, 204 (1955)).
Adams v. TEMPLE INLAND, LA 858 So. 2d 855 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
Co., 94-2065, p. 8 (La.2/20/95), ( , (1955)).
Plaquemines Parish Government v. State 826 So. 2d 14 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
Louisiana Assessors' Retirement Fund v. City of New Orleans 796 So. 2d 687 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
Louisiana Mun. Ass'n v. State 773 So. 2d 663 La. 2000
(1955), this court remedied a clear legislative lapse in the amendment process when widows or widowers of former judges qualified for the retirement benefits of their deceased spouses under one part of the amendment, but were disqualified under a second part.
Wooden v. Louisiana Tax Com'n 650 So. 2d 1157 La. 1995
746, 752 (1895) (holding, in a mandamus proceeding against a state auditor and a state treasurer to require the performance of their official duties, that "executive officers of the state government have no authority to decline the performance of purely ministerial duties which are imposed upon them by law, on the grounds that it contravenes the constitution"); , (1955) (holding, in a mandamus action against state officers to approve applications for and to pay widows' pensions, that the officia
First Nat. Bank v. Beckwith MacHinery Co. 650 So. 2d 1148 La. 1995
Williams v. Holly Hill Nursing Home 640 So. 2d 383 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
Thomas v. Insurance Corp. of America 633 So. 2d 136 La. 1994
(1955) (citing State ex rel.
Tillman v. CSX TRANSP. CO. 617 So. 2d 46 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
Smith v. State, Through the Department of Public Safety, (La.
Green v. Louisiana Underwriters Ins. Co. 571 So. 2d 610 La. 1990
Nichols v. Mid-American Van Line 522 So. 2d 1341 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
Brady v. Slay 460 So. 2d 732 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
the court stated: “The Heard ease, which represents the majority view in this country, enunciates the general rule that a public officer, charged with statutory duties of a ministerial character, is without interest or right to question the constitutionality of the statute affecting or prescribing such duti
Succession of Payne v. Payne 426 So. 2d 1355 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
(1955): "In this situation, the question arises as to the duty of the court in construing the statute.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ETC. v. Perry 423 So. 2d 1266 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
237 So.2d at 684 , , (1955).
Waggoner v. Kellogg-Moore Oil Co., Inc. 375 So. 2d 197 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1979
Ardoin v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. 350 So. 2d 205 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
Groves v. Board of Trustees of Teach. Retire. Sys. 324 So. 2d 587 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
432 , ; , ; State ex rel.
Stein v. Town of Lafitte 266 So. 2d 516 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1972
In regard to interpreting statutes, , (1955) referred to certain guidelines which are apropos: “In this situation, the question arises as to the duty of the court in construing the statute.
Rousselle v. Lyons 262 So. 2d 850 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
746 (1895); , (1955); Smith v. Flournoy, 238 La.
Summerell v. Phillips 247 So. 2d 542 La. 1971
432, ; , ; State v. Heard, 41 La.Ann.
Hayes v. Orleans Parish School Board 237 So. 2d 681 La. 1970
State v. Seals 233 So. 2d 914 La. 1970
Hibbert v. Mudd 187 So. 2d 503 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1966
Gautreau v. Board of Electrical Examiners 167 So. 2d 425 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
*430 In construing a statute, , : "In this situation, the question arises as to the duty of the court in construing the statute.
In re Ackenhausen 146 So. 2d 37 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1962
The Supreme Court, , , said: “The object of the court in construing a statute is to ascertain the legislative intent and, where a literal interpretation would produce absurd consequences, the latter must give way to the spirit of the law and the statute construed so as to produce a reasonable result.
CHF Finance Company v. Jochum 127 So. 2d 534 La. 1961
15 ; , ; Bartley, Inc. v. Town of Westlake, 237 La.
Fosscett v. Lake Charles Municipal Fire & Police Civil Service Board 125 So. 2d 44 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
ired by consideration of the entire act.’ ” We are of the opinion that in order to properly determine the legislative intent, it is necessary to consider this language not only in context with the remaining provisions of the particular sub-section involved but likewise in context as relates to the entire section (15.1) dealing with the Municipal Fire and Police Civil Service Law, , ; St.
Smith v. Flournoy 115 So. 2d 809 La. 1959
rs as to materially impede the proper and necessary operations of the government.’ ‘It was surely never intended that an executive functionary should nullify a law by neglecting or refusing to execute it.’ The result of this conclusion is, that respondents are without right to urge the unconstitutionality of the concurrent resolution which is involved.” *443 , , this court stated: “The Heard case, which represents the majority view in this country, enunciates the general rule that a public offic
Bartley, Incorporated v. Town of Westlake 111 So. 2d 328 La. 1959
Louisiana Motor Vehicle Com'n v. WHEELING FRENCH. 103 So. 2d 464 La. 1958
and the many authorities cited therein.
Flanagan v. A L & W Moore Trucking Contractors 100 So. 2d 289 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
Lucas v. Berkett 98 So. 2d 229 La. 1957
and cases there relied on.
State v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, ETC. 84 So. 2d 597 La. 1955
decided on November 7, 1955 and cases there cited.