Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Hargroder v. Columbia Gulf Transmission Co., 290 So. 2d 874.

22 citing documents.

Carlos Boone, Et Ux. v. Conoco Phillips Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
Boone v. Conoco Phillips Co. 139 So. 3d 1047 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
LEJEUNE BROS. v. Goodrich Petroleum Co. 981 So. 2d 23 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
Lejeune Brothers, Inc. v. Goodrich Petroleum Co., LLC. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
Joseph v. Hospital Service District No. 2 of the Parish of St. Mary 923 So. 2d 27 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
347 , (1969); State v. Simoni, Heck & Assoc.
Travis Lee Stevens v. Darren Keith Bruce La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
the supreme court distinguished between an exception of no right of action and an exception of no cause of action: In Roy O. Martin Lumber Co. v. St.
Stevens v. Bruce 878 So. 2d 734 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
the supreme court distinguished between an exception of no right of action and an exception of no cause of action: In Roy O. Martin Lumber Co. v. St.
Powell v. Dorris 814 So. 2d 763 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
Hazelwood Farm, Inc. v. Liberty Oil & Gas Corp. 790 So. 2d 93 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
Arcadian Corp. v. Olin Corp. 698 So. 2d 9 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
3 Cir.), writ refused, [].
Moore v. Cameron Parish School Bd. 511 So. 2d 62 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
Ashby v. IMC Exploration Co. 506 So. 2d 1193 La. 1987
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.
Broussard v. Northcott Exploration Co., Inc. 481 So. 2d 125 La. 1986
Broussard v. Northcott Exploration Co. 469 So. 2d 392 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
supports his posi *394 tion.
Teachers'retirement System v. La. St. Employees Retirement System 456 So. 2d 594 La. 1984
at 875 (La.1974) (quoting Roy O. Martin Lumber Co. v. St.
Oswalt v. Irby Const. Co. 424 So. 2d 348 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
347 , (1969) defendants argue that plaintiff cannot recover in the absence of a stipulation pour *351 autrui, which the trial court correctly found was not contained in the right of way instrument.
Freeman v. Town of Many 394 So. 2d 693 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
Art. 1890; Andrepont v. Acadia Drilling Co., 255 La.
Succession of Gardiner 366 So. 2d 1065 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
Articles 681 and 927; Parks v. Winnfield Life Insurance *1067 Company, (3rd Cir. 1976).
Jardell v. Sabine Irrigation Co., Inc. 346 So. 2d 1365 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
Sick v. Bendix-United Geophysical Corp. 341 So. 2d 1308 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
3rd Cir. 1973), reversed on other grounds, *1311 b (La.App.
Parks v. Winnfield Life Insurance Company 336 So. 2d 1021 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
Recently our Supreme Court, differentiated the two exceptions with this explanation: "Generally speaking, an exception of no right of action serves to question the right of a plaintiff to maintain this suit, i. e., * * * his interest in the subject matter of the proceeding, whereas an exception of no cause of action addresses itself t