DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Robichaux v. Huppenbauer, 245 So. 2d 385.

20 citing documents.

  • 1205 St. Charles Condo. Assoc. Inc. v. Abel 262 So. 3d 919 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
    He cites a dictionary definition of nuisance and Robichaux v. Huppenbauer , , (1971), in support of his contention that "individual citizens have to submit to some annoyance and inconvenience from the legal exercise of the rights of others within reasonable limit."
  • Badke v. USA Speedway, LLC 139 So. 3d 1117 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
    663 (1900), for the proposition that, in order to obtain an injunction against the racetrack, the plaintiffs were required to provide “strict proof.” , (1971), required | ^strict proof that the activity carried on was of sufficient intensity, annoyance, and inconvenience that he who causes it has created a nuisance which must be abated.
  • Yokum v. Nicholas S. Karno II, Inc. 126 So. 3d 723 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    (1971), we granted injunctive relief to tenants whose health and safety were threatened by the manner in which the neighboring property was being used.
  • Parish of East Feliciana v. Guidry 923 So. 2d 45 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
    (1971), our supreme *53 court stated that noxious smells, rats, flies and noise may constitute an actionable nuisance although produced and carried on by a lawful business, where they result in material injury to neighboring property or interfere with its comfortable use and enjoyment by persons o
  • Barras v. Hebert 602 So. 2d 186 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
  • King v. Western Club, Inc. 587 So. 2d 122 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
    Hero Lands Company v. Texaco, Inc., , Acadian Heritage Realty, (La.App.
  • Evangeline Parish Police Jury v. Deshotel 556 So. 2d 1007 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
    (1971), as follows: ‘Thus noxious smells, rats, flies and noise may constitute an actionable nuisance although produced and carried on by a lawful business, where they result in material injury to neighboring property or interfere with its comfortable use and enjoyment by persons of ordinary
  • Butler v. Baber 529 So. 2d 374 La. 1988
    (1971), involved the operation of a horse stable within a residential area of the City of New Orleans which was found to be not a nuisance per se but a nuisance in fact.
  • Day v. Warren 524 So. 2d 1383 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
    (1971), we considered whether a horse stable located in the City of New Orleans could be abated under C.C.
  • Rodrigue v. Copeland 475 So. 2d 1071 La. 1985
    (1971), we considered whether a horse stable located in the City of New Orleans could be abated under C.C.
  • Vienna Bend Subdivision Homeowners Ass'n v. Manning 459 So. 2d 1345 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
    (1971), examined the two types of nuisances recognized in Louisiana as follows: "Nuisances by their nature are nuisances per se or at law, and nuisances per accidens or in fact.
  • Acadian Heritage Realty v. City of Lafayette 451 So. 2d 17 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
    (1971), the trial court permanently enjoined the defendant from operating a stable or keeping horses on premises in the French Quarter of the City of New Orleans.
  • Acadian Heritage Realty v. City of Lafayette 434 So. 2d 182 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
    Hero Lands Company v. Texaco, Inc., Acadian Heritage Realty, (La.App.
  • Guillot v. Town of Lutcher 373 So. 2d 1385 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1979
  • Gaudet v. Bd. of C. for Pontchartrain Levee 339 So. 2d 931 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1976
  • Salter v. BWS Corporation, Inc. 290 So. 2d 821 La. 1974
    (1971), we granted injunctive relief to tenants whose health and safety were threatened by the manner in which the neighboring property was being used.
  • Salter v. BWS Corporation, Inc. 281 So. 2d 764 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1973
    (1971); Reymond v. State, Through the Department of Highways, 255 La.
  • Scott v. LeCompte 260 So. 2d 345 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
    every one has the liberty of doing on his own ground whatsoever he pleases, although it should occasion some inconvenience to his neighbor” ( , (1971); yet this court deems that the evidence in this case transcends the limits of “some inconvenience” countenanced by C.C.
  • Hilliard v. Shuff 256 So. 2d 127 La. 1972
  • Borenstein v. Joseph Fein Caterers, Inc. 255 So. 2d 800 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1971