Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Chicago Bridge & Iron Company v. Cocreham, 317 So. 2d 605.

25 citing documents.

Cynthia Bridges, Sec., La Dept. of Revenue v. Cepolk Corporation La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
6/23/75), and Bill Roberts, Inc. v. McNamara, 88-1776 (La.
Bridges v. Cepolk Corp. 153 So. 3d 1137 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
1061 , ; Chicago Bridge & Iron Co. v. Cocreham, 55769 (La.6/23/75), ; and Bill Roberts, Inc. v. McNamara, 88-1776 (La.3/13/89), .
UTELCOM, Inc. v. Bridges 77 So. 3d 39 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
See Chicago Bridge & cert.
Grey Wolf Drilling Company v. William L. Endris La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
Grey Wolf Drilling Co. v. Endris 862 So. 2d 1248 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Chicago Bridge & cert.
Shell Pipeline Corp. v. Kennedy 818 So. 2d 903 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
where a tax statute is susceptible of more than one reasonable interpretation, the construction favorable to the taxpayer is adopted.” Goudchaux/Maison Blanche v. Broussard citing, Collector or Revenue v. Wells Fargo Leasing and Chicago Bridge and Iron Co. v. Cocreham
Mercury Cellular Tel. Co. v. CALCASIEU PARISH OF LOUISIANA 773 So. 2d 914 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
Chicago Bridge & cert.
Secretary of the Department of Revenue & Taxation v. Dixie Rice Agricultural Corp. 653 So. 2d 728 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
853 (1901) and a tax statute susceptible of more than one reasonable interpretation must be interpreted most favorably to the taxpayer Goudchaux/Maison Blanche, citing Chicago Bridge & cert.
Tarver v. EI Du Pont De Nemours and Co. 634 So. 2d 356 La. 1994
Goudchaux/Maison Blanche, Chicago Bridge & cert.
Louisiana Paving Co., Inc. v. ST. CHARLES PARISH PUB. SCHOOLS 604 So. 2d 593 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1992
Louisiana Power & Light v. Parish Sch. Bd. 597 So. 2d 578 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1992
Goudchaux/Maison Blanche v. Broussard 590 So. 2d 1159 La. 1991
Chicago Bridge & cert.
Pensacola Const. Co. v. McNamara 558 So. 2d 231 La. 1990
Chicago Bridge & cert.
Pensacola Construction Co. v. McNamara 555 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Relying on Chicago Bridge & ce rt.
Succession of Zaring 527 So. 2d 417 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
McNamara v. Central Marine Service, Inc. 507 So. 2d 207 La. 1987
MODERN HOMES & EQUIP., CO. v. Collector of Revenue 422 So. 2d 1237 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Chicago Bridge & Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co. v. Reily, 373 U.S. 64 , 83 S.Ct.
Sabine Pipe & Supply Co. v. McNamara 411 So. 2d 1167 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
873 , (1970); Chicago Bridge &amp
Lafayette Parish School Board v. Market Leasing Co. 407 So. 2d 23 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
Not only is such a result equitable, La.Civ.Code art. 1965, and consistent with construction of tax statutes in favor of the taxpayer, but it also serves the interests of judicial economy.
Secretary of the Department of Revenue & Taxation v. C. T. Almand Distributor, Inc. 395 So. 2d 391 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
Sperry Rand Corp. v. Collector of Revenue 376 So. 2d 505 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
In the recent case of Chicago Bridge & the Supreme Court held that "the Louisiana Use Tax as applied to labor and shop overhead of the out of state manufacturer-user is unconstitutional and therefore unenforceable, because violative of the commerce clause of the United States Constitution."
South Central Bell Tel. Co. v. Traigle 367 So. 2d 1143 La. 1978
1st Cir. 1974) (reversed on other grounds, (La.
Colonial Pipeline Co. v. Traigle 353 So. 2d 728 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
Ethyl Corp. v. Collector of Revenue 351 So. 2d 1290 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
Therefore, in interpreting this statute it is necessary that we recognize that statutes imposing taxes are liberally construed in favor of the taxpayer, Chicago Bridge & whereas exemptions from taxation are to be strictly construed against the person claiming the exemption, and any plausible doubt is fatal, Mattingly v. Vial, 193 La.
Dow Chemical Company v. Traigle 336 So. 2d 285 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
The court below, relying on Chicago Bridge & Iron Company v. Cocreham, La., (1975) and Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Company v. Reily, 373 U. S. 64 , 83 S.Ct.