Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Babineaux v. Pernie-Bailey Drilling Co., 262 So. 2d 328.

165 citing documents.

Lee v. East Baton Rouge Parish School Bd. 623 So. 2d 150 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
Randall v. Lloyd's Underwriter's at London 602 So. 2d 790 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
Aldredge v. Whitney 591 So. 2d 1201 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
See Teachers Retirement System, supra ; , (1972).
Hirschfeld v. St. Pierre 577 So. 2d 747 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
Zeta-Caiman, Ltd. v. Naik 566 So. 2d 1016 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
Kok v. Harris 563 So. 2d 374 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
Collins v. Baggette 549 So. 2d 878 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
See Babineaux v. Pernie- *881 Bailey Drilling Co., , (1972); (La.App.
Smith v. Cole 541 So. 2d 307 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
(1972); Invest, (La.App.
Honeywell, Inc. v. Sierra 543 So. 2d 594 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
Bordelon v. Cochrane 533 So. 2d 82 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
Griffin v. Tenneco Oil Co. 531 So. 2d 498 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
MAS Nursing, Inc. v. Burke 523 So. 2d 909 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
Teachers' Retirement System v. Louisiana State Employees Retirement System, supra; , (1972).
Terrio v. Terrio 522 So. 2d 654 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
Law of the case can be applied “at the appellate court level in regard to parties who have had the identical issue presented and decided previously by that appellate court in an earlier appellate proceeding in the same case.” Petition of Sewerage and Water Board of New Orleans, supra; , (1972).
Lagarde v. Allstate Ins. Co. 515 So. 2d 1147 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1987
Steece v. State 504 So. 2d 984 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
Olivier v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh 499 So. 2d 1330 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
1st Cir.1971); , (1972).
Bouton v. Allstate Ins. Co. 491 So. 2d 56 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Alexander & Alexander, Inc. v. STATE EX REL. DIV. OF ADMIN. 486 So. 2d 95 La. 1986
Babineaux v. Pernie-Bailey Drilling Co., 261 La.1080, (1972); L'Enfant, Civil Procedure, 31 La.L.Rev.
BD. OF COM'RS, FIFTH LA. LEVEE DIST. v. Commission on Ethics for Public Employees 484 So. 2d 845 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Bohn v. La. Farm Bur. Mut. Ins. Co. 482 So. 2d 843 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
(1972), the Supreme Court discussed the difference between exceptions of no right of action and no cause of action: There has been much discussion about the purpose of the exception of no right of action, and many attempts to differentiate that exception from the exception of no cause of action.
Goulas v. Goulas 475 So. 2d 134 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
In Re Norton 471 So. 2d 1053 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Gustin v. Shows, supra ; , Bamber Contractors, Inc. v. Henderson Bros., Inc., (La.App.
Guillory v. Morein 468 So. 2d 1254 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
(1972): "One of the best statements of the definition of no right of action and of the basis of the distinction between it and no cause of action was given by the late Henry George McMahon: `The former [no cause of action] is used to raise the issue as to whether the law affords a remedy to anyone for
Gulf Oil Corp. v. Marine Concrete Structures, Inc. 464 So. 2d 829 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
(1972), the Louisiana Supreme Court stated: “There has been much discussion about the purpose of the exception of no right of action, and many attempts to differentiate that exception from the exception of no cause of action.
Robinson v. North American Royalties, Inc. 463 So. 2d 1384 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
Teachers'retirement System v. La. St. Employees Retirement System 456 So. 2d 594 La. 1984
Galle v. Allstate Ins. Co. 451 So. 2d 72 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
Petition of the Sewerage and Water Board of New Orleans, , (1972).
Mayer v. Valentine Sugars, Inc. 444 So. 2d 618 La. 1984
Succession of Ziifle 441 So. 2d 266 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
Steadman v. Sladovich 430 So. 2d 816 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1983
NOTES [1] For a further discussion distinguishing the two exceptions, , (La.
Fontana v. Zurich Ins. Co. 430 So. 2d 718 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
Lindley v. Cardwell 430 So. 2d 159 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
IMC Exploration Co. v. Henderson 419 So. 2d 490 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
Smith v. Stephens 412 So. 2d 570 La. 1982
Selber Bros., Inc. v. Bryant 406 So. 2d 251 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
RG Claitor's Realty v. Juban 391 So. 2d 394 La. 1980
art. 928; , (1972); La.Code Civ.P.
Russell v. Lake Sherwood Acres, Inc. 388 So. 2d 822 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
Plaquemines Parish Com'n Council v. Perez 379 So. 2d 1373 La. 1980
(1972); McMahon, The Exception of No Cause of Action in Louisiana, 9 Tul.L.Rev.
Gustin v. Shows 377 So. 2d 1325 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
(1972); Bamber Contractors, Inc. v. Henderson Brothers, Inc., (La.App.
Garrett v. Earnest 376 So. 2d 623 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1979
Holzhauser v. Fagan 363 So. 2d 1232 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
art. 927; , (1972) and the cases and law review articles cited therein.
Gomez V. Farmers Export Co. 363 So. 2d 538 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
51 , (1954); , (1972); American Bank & Trust Company v. French, supra.
Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Soileau 357 So. 2d 563 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1978
E. g., , (1972); Guillory v. Nicklos Oil & Gas Company, supra ; All State Credit Plan Houma, (La.App.
Marchand v. Estate of Loga 354 So. 2d 576 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
*579 1080 , (1972); American Creosote Company v. Springer, 257 La.
Marchand v. Armstrong 354 So. 2d 581 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
art. 931; , (1972); American Creosote Company v. Springer, 257 La.
B & J Boats, Inc. v. Whitney 351 So. 2d 815 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
Lewis v. Kehoe Academy 346 So. 2d 289 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1977
17, 29-30 (1934-1935); , (1972).
Shell Oil Co. v. Kennedy 344 So. 2d 1153 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
(1972) the Supreme Court held that a trial judge may properly determine, in advance of a jury trial on the merits, the peremptory exception of no right of action, even when factual evidence must be evaluated in order to make the determination.
Desormeaux v. Central Industries, Inc. 333 So. 2d 431 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
Pons v. Pons 327 So. 2d 561 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
: “There has been much discussion about the purpose of the exception of no right of action, and many attempts to differentiate that exception from the exception of no cause of action.