Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Stevens v. Bd. of Trustees of Police Pension Fund of City of Shreveport, 309 So. 2d 144.

87 citing documents.

Spitzfaden v. Dow Corning Corp. 619 So. 2d 795 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
Adams v. CSX Railroads 615 So. 2d 476 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
Becnel v. United Gas Pipeline Co. 613 So. 2d 1155 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1993
Rivera v. United Gas Pipeline Co. 613 So. 2d 1152 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1993
(on rehearing), and Stevens v. *1154 Board of Trustees
Livingston Parish Police Jury v. Acadiana Shipyards 598 So. 2d 1177 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
Palowsky v. Premier Bancorp, Inc. 597 So. 2d 543 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
Ellis v. Georgia-Pacific Corp. 550 So. 2d 1310 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
provided that "[w]hen the right to proceed by class action is contested, the trial court in the exercise of its discretion in applying the guidelines may need some showing in addition to the pleadings."
Federal Savings & Loan Insurance v. Dutel & Dutel 529 So. 2d 115 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
Terrebonne Bank & Trust Co. v. Lacombe 510 So. 2d 78 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
the Caswell test was rejected by the Supreme Court as being too stringent.
Brown v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. 506 So. 2d 621 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
591-595 and have been extensively discussed in several opinions of our Supreme Court, State ex rel.
Honeywell, Inc. v. Bernstein 479 So. 2d 32 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
Hunter v. Union Carbide Corp. 468 So. 2d 28 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
the Supreme Court cited various guidelines and said that much discretion is left to the trial judge in determining whether a class action should be maintained.
Bergeron v. Avco Financial Services of NO 468 So. 2d 1250 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
Terrebonne Bank & Trust Co. v. Lacombe 464 So. 2d 753 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
Pellerin v. LA. HEALTH SERVICE & INDEM. CO. 460 So. 2d 93 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
of Trustees of Police Pension Fund of City of Shreveport, (La.
In Re Tutorship of Werling 459 So. 2d 758 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
The exception of no right of action is a threshold device to terminate a suit brought by one who has no interest in it, it "cannot be utilized to determine whether defendant can stand in judgment, or to urge that plaintiff has no right simply because there is a valid defense ...
McCastle v. Rollins Environmental Services of La., Inc. 456 So. 2d 612 La. 1984
Dixie Savings Ass'n v. Kinchin 454 So. 2d 356 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
Accordingly, plaintiff has failed to meet the guidelines for a State ex rel.
Compass v. Pan American Life Ins. Co. 443 So. 2d 720 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
McCastle v. Rollins Environmental Services 440 So. 2d 812 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
enunciated the criteria to be used in making the determination of the availability of the class action procedure found in L.S.A.-C.
Livingston Parish Police Jury v. ILLINOIS CENT. GULF R. 432 So. 2d 1027 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
the Supreme Court treated this question under the heading "Procedural Vehicle to Question Class Action" and concluded that the objection could be raised by means of a peremptory exception.
Millet v. Rollins Environ. Services of La. 428 So. 2d 1075 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
the Louisiana Supreme Court, in an effort to resolve the conflict among the various circuits of the Court of Appeal regarding the availability of the class action procedure found in LSA-C.C.P.
Spillman v. City of Baton Rouge 417 So. 2d 1212 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
the court elaborated on the above articles as follows: "They show that, in sanctioning class actions, the legislature has imposed the following requirements: (1) a class so numerous that joinder is impractical; (2) the joinder as parties to the suit of one or more parties who are (a) members of the class, a
Citicorp Person-to-Person Financial Center, Inc. v. Radke 409 So. 2d 391 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
of Trustees of Police Pension Fund, -151 (La.1975).
Hankamer v. Texaco, Inc. 387 So. 2d 1251 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
New Orleans Firefighter's Ass'n of Louisiana, Local 632 v. City Civil Service Commission 371 So. 2d 339 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
Stevens v. Board of Trustees of Police Pension 370 So. 2d 528 La. 1979
The case was previously before this Court on the issue of maintaining the class action
State Ex Rel. Guste v. General Motors Corp. 370 So. 2d 477 La. 1979
Pillow v. BD. OF COM'RS FOR FIFTH LA. L. DIST. 369 So. 2d 1172 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1979
Pillow v. Board of Commissioners for Fifth Louisiana Levee District 369 So. 2d 1172 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
Louette v. SECURITY IND. INS. CO. 364 So. 2d 564 La. 1978
these factors would tend to make this right have a common enough character to be the basis for a class action: Small enough damages ($600 here) to make individual suits inconvenient.
Stevens v. Board of Trustees 362 So. 2d 1136 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1978
Louette v. Security Indus. Ins. Co. 361 So. 2d 1348 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1978
State Ex Rel. Guste v. General Motors Corp. 354 So. 2d 770 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
Williams v. State 350 So. 2d 131 La. 1977
Servi-Clean Industries, Inc. v. Tonti Management Corp. 336 So. 2d 799 La. 1976
I concur in the result because I by the majority opinion.
Hemps Creek Users v. Pollutors of Hemps Creek 330 So. 2d 361 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
our Supreme Court held that a peremptory exception to the use of a class action was the proper means to urge improper use of a class action.