DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Hero Lands Company v. Texaco, Inc., 310 So. 2d 93.

227 citing documents.

  • Miller v. McDonald's Corp. 415 So. 2d 418 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    [1] citing Hero Lands Co. v. Texaco, Inc., Louisiana & Arkansas Railway Company v. Goslin, 258 La.
  • Leenerts Farms, Inc. v. Rogers 411 So. 2d 576 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    Hero Lands Company v. Texaco, Inc., (La.App.
  • Weldon v. Republic Bank 414 So. 2d 1361 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
  • Shores v. Fidelity & Cas. Co. of New York 413 So. 2d 315 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
    As stated by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Hero Lands Company v. Texaco, Inc., : "The correctness of the well-pleaded allegations of fact is conceded, the issue is whether the face of the petition presents a case which legally entitles the mover to the redress sought.
  • Bank of Jena v. Clark 413 So. 2d 281 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    Hero Lands Company v. Texaco, Inc.
  • Wetzka v. Big Three Industries, Inc. 409 So. 2d 393 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
    However, in Hero Lands Company v. Texaco, Inc., the court expressly stated in a per curiam opinion: "* * * We have not held that allegations of damage based upon a depreciation of land value because of ordinary constructions and activities on a neighbor's property necessarily state a cause of action.
  • Gravois v. Ockmond 409 So. 2d 400 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    art. 927(4); Hero Lands Company v. Texaco, Inc., American Bank & (La.App.
  • Abernathy v. Varnado 409 So. 2d 682 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    Hero Lands Company v. Texaco, Inc.
  • Mercier v. Flugence 408 So. 2d 52 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
    Hero Lands Company v. Texaco, Inc.
  • Brooking v. Brooking 407 So. 2d 1342 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    Hero Lands Company v. Texaco, Inc.
  • Reagan v. Olinkraft, Inc. 408 So. 2d 937 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1981
    Hero Lands Company v. Texaco, Inc.
  • Androwski v. Ole McDonald's Farms, Inc. 407 So. 2d 455 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    Hero Lands Company v. Texaco, Inc., (La.App.
  • Tompkins v. Kenner Police Dept. 402 So. 2d 276 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
    NOTES [1] Haskins v. Clary, La., ; Pence v. Ketchum, La., ; Hero Lands Company v. Texaco, Inc., La., .
  • Guy Scroggins, Inc. v. Emerald Exploration 401 So. 2d 680 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
    Hero Lands Company v. Texaco, Inc., Guillory v. Nicklos Oil & Gas Company, (La.App.
  • Lambert v. Maryland Cas. Co. 403 So. 2d 739 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
    Plaintiffs also cite Hero Lands Company v. Texaco, Inc., La., , which involved a question of strict liability under C.C.
  • Monies Lumber Co. v. Village Du Lac, Inc. 399 So. 2d 747 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    Hero Lands Company v. Texaco, Inc., Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners v. England, 252 La.
  • Krawfish Kitchen Restaurant, Inc. v. Ardoin 396 So. 2d 990 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
  • Acadian Heritage Realty, Inc. v. City of Lafayette 394 So. 2d 855 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
    In determining whether a petition states a cause of action, our Supreme Court in Hero Lands Company v. Texaco, Inc., provided the following guidelines at page 96: "The function of the peremptory exception of no cause of action is to test the legal sufficiency of the petition.
  • Carmouche v. Oubre 394 So. 2d 805 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
    Hero Lands Co. v. Texaco, Inc.
  • Jefferson Business Serv., Inc. v. Olivetti Corp. 393 So. 2d 880 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
    Hero Lands Company v. Texaco, Inc.
  • Marceaux v. Town of Lake Arthur 392 So. 2d 783 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
    In Hero Lands Company v. Texaco, Inc., the Supreme Court vigorously reaffirmed the basic principle that in considering a petition against which an exception of no cause of action has been raised, every reasonable interpretation must be accorded its language in favor of maintaining its sufficiency to afford the litigant an opportunity to present
  • Jim McCary, Inc. v. Price 391 So. 2d 921 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1980
    Hero Lands Co. v. Texaco, Inc.
  • Lanham v. Woodward, Wight & Co., Ltd. 386 So. 2d 131 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
    Hero Lands Company v. Texaco, Inc.
  • Elliott v. Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co. 387 So. 2d 1383 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
    and Hero Lands Company v. Texaco, Inc.
  • Johnston v. Cummins 388 So. 2d 432 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1980
    Hero Lands Co. v. Texaco, Inc., (La.
  • Lieber v. Rust 388 So. 2d 836 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1980
  • Fuller v. Scott 387 So. 2d 49 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    The Louisiana Supreme Court in Hero Lands Company v. Texaco, Inc., (1975) stated the principles governing the peremptory exception of no cause of action at page 96: [1,2] “The function of the peremptory exception of no cause of action is to test the legal sufficiency of the petition.
  • Linzay v. Tangipahoa Parish Farm Bur. 387 So. 2d 1343 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    1973); Hero Lands Co. v. Texaco, Inc., (La.
  • Rodriguez v. American Bankers Ins. Co. of Florida 386 So. 2d 652 La. 1980
    Hero Lands Co. v. Texaco, Inc., (La.
  • Emp. Mut. Liability Ins. v. Red Simpson, Inc. 386 So. 2d 961 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
    Hero Lands Company v. Texaco, Inc.
  • Adserv Corp. v. Lincecum 385 So. 2d 432 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    Hero Lands Company v. Texaco, Inc.
  • McCloud v. Parish of Jefferson 383 So. 2d 477 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
    Hero Lands Company v. Texaco, Inc.
  • Pennebaker v. Parish of Jefferson 383 So. 2d 484 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
    Hero Lands Company v. Texaco, Inc., (La.
  • Delta Bank & Trust Co. v. Lassiter 383 So. 2d 330 La. 1980
  • Plaquemines Parish Com'n Council v. Perez 379 So. 2d 1373 La. 1980
    Exception of No Cause of Action (Recusal) we presented the following analysis of the exception of no cause of action: "The function of the peremptory exception of no cause of action is to test the legal sufficiency of the petition.
  • Bowes v. Fox-Stanley Photo Products, Inc. 379 So. 2d 844 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
    See, for example, Hero Lands Co. v. Texaco, Inc.
  • Corcoran v. NEW ORLEANS FIRE FIGHTER'S ETC. 379 So. 2d 829 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
    art. 931; Hero Lands Company v. Texaco, Inc., La., (1975), and Fontenot v. Fontenot, 235 La.
  • Ely v. Northumberland General Insurance 378 So. 2d 1024 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    Hero Lands Co. v. Texaco, Inc.
  • Clark v. Clark 377 So. 2d 544 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
    See Hero Lands Company v. Texaco, Inc., (La.
  • Succession of Vidrine 377 So. 2d 564 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
  • Brunet v. Evangeline Parish Board of Supervisors of Elections 376 So. 2d 633 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    Hero Lands Company v. Texaco, Inc.
  • Brauninger v. Ducote 381 So. 2d 1246 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1979
    Hero Lands Co. v. Texaco, Inc.
  • Brunet v. EVANGELINE PARISH BD., ETC. 376 So. 2d 633 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
    Hero Lands Company v. Texaco, Inc.
  • Wheelahan v. STATE, ETC. 376 So. 2d 576 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1979
    3rd Cir. 1975); Hero Lands Co. v. Texaco, Inc.
  • None of the Above v. Hardy 377 So. 2d 385 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    *387 Hero Lands Company v. Texaco, Inc., (La.
  • Wilson v. Cost+ Plus of Vivian, Inc. 375 So. 2d 683 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1979
    Haskins, supra; Pence, supra; Hero Lands Company v. Texaco, Inc., (La.
  • Red River Realty, Inc. v. Relmm Corp. 372 So. 2d 792 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    Plaintiff contends the trial court erred because it failed to follow the decision of Hero Lands Company v. Texaco, Inc., wherein the supreme court reversed a decision which sustained an exception of no cause of action to a petition for damages caused to plaintiff’s land adjacent to defendant’s right of way wherein a 24-inch high-pressure gas pipeline had been constructed.
  • Berry v. Berry 371 So. 2d 1346 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    Hero Lands Company v. Texaco, Inc., (La.
  • Morgan v. Southwood Academy 371 So. 2d 1202 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    Hero Lands Company v. Texaco, Inc., (La.App.
  • Slay v. Smith 368 So. 2d 1144 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
    In Hero Lands Company v. Texaco, Inc., the court succinctly set forth the general rules applicable to the trial and consideration of exceptions of no cause of action.