Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State, Dept. of Hwys. v. LAMAR ADVERTISING COMPANY OF LOUISIANA, INC., 279 So. 2d 671.

60 citing documents.

The Council of the City of New Orleans v. Edward Wisner Donation La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2024
Luke J. Grezaffi v. Paul Bryan Carroll and Mikki Gremillion Carroll La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2023
Co. of Louisiana, Inc., (La.
Steve Crooks v. State of La. Through the Dept. of Natural Resources La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
Jo Ellen Cohen Versus Michael Baruch Cohen La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2021
Richard Halpern v. Jonathan Ferrara Gallery, Inc. and Jonathan Ferrara La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2020
Rosa Bernard Henry v. Precision Holdings, LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
Co. of 4 Louisiana, Inc.
Henry v. Precision Holdings, LLC 274 So. 3d 658 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
Two Canal Street Investors, Inc. v. New Orleans Building Corp. 202 So. 3d 1003 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
Feingerts v. American Casualty Co. of Reading 132 So. 3d 994 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
Additionally, the Supreme Court considered the resulting consequences of holding that a party is indispensable.
Reed v. Mid-States Wood Preservers, Inc. 999 So. 2d 189 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
Notably, in State Through Dept. Of Highways v. Lamar Advertising Co. of Louisiana, Inc., the Louisiana Supreme Court held that parties should be characterized as indispensable "only when that result is absolutely necessary to protect substantial rights."
Fewell v. City of Monroe 987 So. 2d 323 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
CITY OF ST. GABRIEL v. Hebert 966 So. 2d 1249 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
641, 645, 927, State through Dept. of Highways v. Lamar Advertising Co., Inc., (La.
Gibbs v. Magnolia Living Center, Inc. 870 So. 2d 1111 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
art. 641; State, DOTD v. Lamar Advertising Co. of La., Inc. (La.
Bonnette v. Tunica-Biloxi Indians 873 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
The 1995 amendments to Articles 641-646 were intended to codify Louisiana State, Department of Highways v. Lamar Advertising Co. of La., Inc.
TPSB v. Bass Enterprises Production Co. 852 So. 2d 541 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Co. of La., Inc., see also Rainey v. Entergy Gulf States, Inc., 01-2414 (La.
Industrial Companies, Inc. v. Durbin 837 So. 2d 1207 La. 2003
Stephenson v. Nations Credit Financial Services Corp. 754 So. 2d 1011 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
[7] The 1995 comment to Article 641 provides as follows: The amendments to Articles 641 through 646, 926 and 927, codify the holding of the Louisiana Supreme Court in State Through Department of Highways v. Lamar Advertising Co. of La., Inc., that courts determine whether a party should be joined and whether the action could proceed if the party could not be joined by a factual analysis of the interests involved.
Latour v. State 741 So. 2d 819 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
the supreme court held that parties should be characterized as indispensable “only when that result is absolutely necessary to protect substantial rights.” In Carter v. Baton Rouge Par.
FAMILY FEDERAL SAV. AND LOAN ASS'N v. Huckaby 714 So. 2d 80 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
State Through Department of Highways v. Lamar Advertising Company of Louisiana, Inc.
Wiley v. Wiley 704 So. 2d 897 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
Pecoraro v. the Napoleon Room, Inc. 666 So. 2d 1151 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
the Supreme Court analyzed the consequences that flow from labeling a party indispensable and concluded that "[t]hese differences in the way the absent party affects the case, and the possible harsh result if the party is ruled indispensable, mandate that such classification be applied to a party only after
Ebey v. Harvill 647 So. 2d 461 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
v. Lamar Advertising Co., Inc.
MR Bldg. Corp. v. Bayou Utilities, Inc. 637 So. 2d 614 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
Bourque v. Norman Offshore Pipelines 634 So. 2d 1363 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
In accord, State of Louisiana, Through the Department of Highways v. Lamar Advertising Company of Louisiana, Inc.
Perry v. Allied Offshore Marine Corp. 618 So. 2d 1033 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
art. 2592 was considered in State of Louisiana, Through the Department of Highways v. Lamar Advertising Company of Louisiana, Inc., (La.
Carter v. Baton Rouge City-Parish Employees' Retirement System 612 So. 2d 765 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
Nelson v. Burkeen Const. Co. 605 So. 2d 681 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
In State Dept. of Highways v. Lamar Advertising Company of Louisiana, Inc., the Supreme Court analyzed the consequences that flow from labeling a party indispensable as opposed to necessary and concluded that "these differences in the way the absent party affects the case, and the possible harsh result if the party is ruled indispensable, mandate that such classification be applied
Bonaventure v. Pourciau 577 So. 2d 742 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
In State, Department of Highways v. Lamar Advertising Company of Louisiana, Inc., -679 (La.1973) appears the following: In the instant cases, a timely filed dilatory exception pleaded unauthorized use of summary proceeding.
Stewart v. Williams 572 So. 2d 1085 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
State, Department of Highways v. Lamar Advertising Company of Louisiana, Inc.
Cooper v. Olinde 565 So. 2d 978 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
Since State of Louisiana, through Department of Highways v. Lamar Advertising Company of Louisiana, Inc., the courts of this state have continued to mandate joinder when it will prove a plaintiff's right of action or will define the scope of a defendant's liability or obligations.
Beevers v. JEFFERSON PARISH JUV. COURT 552 So. 2d 1317 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
City of Shreveport v. Petrol Industries, Inc. 550 So. 2d 689 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
Burdine & Associates, Inc. v. Noel 550 So. 2d 677 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
of La., Inc., interpreting what is now C.C.P.
Sutton v. Montegut 544 So. 2d 1181 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
Co. of La., Inc., Horn v. Skelly Oil Co., 221 La.
Franklin Printing Co. v. Dorion 532 So. 2d 885 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
Ursin v. New Orleans Aviation Bd. 515 So. 2d 1087 La. 1987
Co. of La., Inc., at 677 (La.1973).
Fowler v. Iles 517 So. 2d 1083 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
v. Lamar Advertising Co. of La., Inc.
Milton v. Pilgrim Life Insurance Co. of America 500 So. 2d 434 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
art. 641 and State, Dep’t
Hart v. Baker Marine Corp. 493 So. 2d 899 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Co. of La., Inc., (La.App.
Lanaux v. CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, BD. OF ZONING 489 So. 2d 329 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
art. 927; State, Through Department of Highways v. Lamar Advertising Company of Louisiana, Inc.
Verges v. Life Insurance Co. of Virginia 485 So. 2d 616 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Art. 645; State through Department of Highways v. Lamar Advertising Co. of Louisiana, Inc.
Orleans Parish School Board v. Smith 470 So. 2d 202 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
Art. 641; State Through Department of Highways v. Lamar Advertising Company of Louisiana, Inc.
Dunham v. Dunham 467 So. 2d 555 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
State, Department of Highways v. Lamar Advertising Company of Louisiana, Inc., (La.
Confederate Welding & Safety Supply, Inc. v. Bank of the Mid-South 458 So. 2d 1370 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
State Through the Department of Highways v. Lamar Advertising of Louisiana, Inc.
Riverlands National Bank v. Williams 450 So. 2d 753 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
Raftery Elevator Corp. v. Maloney 447 So. 2d 634 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
See State, Department of Highways v. Lamar Advertising Company of Louisiana, Inc.
TERRA DEVEL. CORP. v. Southland Dragway, Inc. 442 So. 2d 587 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
State, Department of Highways v. Lamar Advertising Company of Louisiana, Inc.
Deshotels v. State Professional Improvement Committee ex rel. Department of Education 430 So. 2d 1198 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
State, Department of Highways v. Lamar Advertising Company of Louisiana, Inc.
Whipple v. Smith 428 So. 2d 1114 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
art. 2592; State Through Dept. of Highways v. Lamar Advertising Co. of La., Inc., Gary v. Brenholz, 120 La.
Thomas v. Irvin 425 So. 2d 936 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
State through Dept. of Highways v. Lamar Advertising Co. of La., Inc.