Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Wischer v. Madison Realty Company, 92 So. 2d 589.

32 citing documents.

Ralph v. City of New Orleans 928 So. 2d 537 La. 2006
Wischer v. Madison Realty Co., Inc., , (1956).
Madisonville State Bank v. Marvin M. Glick La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
1 We note that: “Fundamentally there is no distinction between the exception of no right of action and that of want of interest.” Wischer v. Madison Realty Company, Inc., (cited in Ralph v. City of New Orleans, 04-1270 (La.App.
Madisonville State Bank v. Glick 930 So. 2d 263 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
We note that: "Fundamentally there is no distinction between the exception of no right of action and that of want of interest.” Wischer v. Madison Realty Company, Inc., , (cited in Ralph v. City of New Orleans, 04-1270 (La.App.
Ralph v. City of New Orleans 921 So. 2d 988 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
Wischer v. Madison Realty Company, Inc., -710 , (1956).
Wonycott v. Wonycott 579 So. 2d 506 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
Thomas v. State 545 So. 2d 632 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
Terrebonne Bank & Trust Co. v. Lacombe 464 So. 2d 753 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
Crawford v. Williber 413 So. 2d 302 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Bielkiewicz v. Rudisill, 201 So.2d *305 136 (La.App.3rd Cir. 1967) and the authorities therein cited; , (1956)
Clark v. Clark 377 So. 2d 544 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
Curry v. Iberville Parish Sheriff's Office 378 So. 2d 159 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
Termini v. McCormick, 208 La.
Papworth v. Truxton Corp. 357 So. 2d 1198 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
Relying on Wischer v. Madison Realty Company, Inc., , (1957) they contend that the initial inquiry for the court was whether or not they state a cause of action and if so they are entitled to a trial on the merits in which evidence of title could be taken.
Comet Drilling Co. v. Tri-State Oil Tool Industries, Inc. 337 So. 2d 567 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
Termini v. McCormick, 208 La.
Davis v. Southern Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. 324 So. 2d 468 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
(citations omitted) "For instance, in Wischer [ , ], the Supreme Court reversed the lower court and held that the defendants could not by this exception introduce a compromise and quitclaim agreement executed by the plaintiff in favor of the defendants in order to prove that he lacked interest or right to file the suit in question."
Weil v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 323 So. 2d 524 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
Stevens v. Bd. of Trustees of Police Pension Fund of City of Shreveport 309 So. 2d 144 La. 1975
Watkins v. Louisiana High School Athletic Ass'n 301 So. 2d 695 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1974
Furthermore, jurisprudence has firmly established the rule that the exception of no right of action is not available to urge a defense to the effect that the plaintiff is without interest simply because the defendants have a defense, , .
Invest, Incorporated v. State 247 So. 2d 175 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
Termini v. McCormick, 208 La.
Noel v. Noel 244 So. 2d 73 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
In Wischer v. Madison Realty Company, Inc., , , plaintiff brought a petitory action based on a claim of ownership by virtue of alleged thirty years adverse possession.
West v. City of Ville Platte 237 So. 2d 730 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1970
Stevens v. State Mineral Board 233 So. 2d 542 La. 1970
See Wischer v. Madison Realty Company, Inc., , and Cattle Farms, Inc. et al. v. Abercrombie et al., 244 La.
Langley v. Copolymer Rubber & Chemical Corp. 233 So. 2d 353 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
Termini v. McCormick, 208 La.
Moore v. Shell Oil Company 228 So. 2d 205 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1970
Bielkiewicz v. Rudisill 201 So. 2d 136 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1967
Termini v. McCormick, 208 La.
Distinguished Harper v. Celotex Corp. 183 So. 2d 350 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
On these facts the court held that the plaintiff “is not, and never was, a proper party plaintiff,” and maintained the exception of “want of interest or no right of action.” , .
Cattle Farms, Inc. v. Abercrombie 155 So. 2d 426 La. 1963
These principles are so well recognized in our law that citation of authorities would be burdensome.” Wischer et al. v. Madison Realty Company, Inc. et al., , , was a petitory action in which the defendants, under an exception of no right of action, offered in evidence the records of prior law suits involving the same parties to establish that the plaintiffs were without interest in the subject matter of the suit.
Wischer v. Madison Realty Co. 146 So. 2d 819 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
Guenard v. Key 131 So. 2d 108 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
The Duplain case was again cited with approval in Wischer v. Madison Realty Company, 1957, , , wherein the court observed that: “Fundamentally there is no distinction between the exception of no right of action and that of want of interest.
Maggio v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. 102 So. 2d 505 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
704, ; Rapides Grocery Co. v. Vann, 230 La.
Johnston v. City of New Orleans 101 So. 2d 206 La. 1958
51 , ; and Wischer v. Madison Realty Company, Inc., , .
Liuzza v. Tangipahoa Parish Police Jury 101 So. 2d 473 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
Likewise, these allegations of the petition state a legal “interest” in plaintiff in the subject matter of the suit so as to require the overruling of defendant’s “exception of no right of action”, an exception which is also and perhaps more accurately sometimes denoted as the “exceptions of want of interest.” Wischer v. Madison *476 Realty Co., , ; Maryland Cas.
Richard v. National Surety Corporation 99 So. 2d 831 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
"Since the time of the opinion below, three decisions have been rendered by the Supreme Court and ourselves which have clarified what was admittedly a clouded question at the time; , ; Rapides Grocery Co. v. Vann, 230 La.
Maryland Casualty Co. v. Gulf Refining Co. 95 So. 2d 734 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
Since the time of the opinion below, three decisions have been rendered by the Supreme Court and ourselves which have clarified what was admittedly a clouded question at the time: , ; Rapides Grocery Co. v. Vann, 230 La.