DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite League of Women Voters v. City of New Orleans, 381 So. 2d 441.

44 citing documents.

  • Stanley R. Palowsky, III, Individually, and on Behalf of Alternative Environmental Solutions, Inc. v. Allyson Campbell La. 2019
    Without a showing of some special interest … separate and distinct from the interest of the public at large, plaintiff will not be permitted to proceed.” (La.
  • Stonecipher v. Caddo Parish 219 So. 3d 1187 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2017
  • Animal Legal Defense Fund v. State, Department of Wildlife & Fisheries 140 So. 3d 8 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    Municipal Employees’ Retirement System, 676 So.2d at 837 ; -47 (La.1980) (holding that a taxpayer attempting to compel the performance of a public duty by a public entity is required to demonstrate a special or particular interest distinct from that of the public at large.)
  • Vieux Carre Property Owners, Residents & Associates, Inc. v. Hotel Royal, L.L.C. 55 So. 3d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
  • Ralph v. City of New Orleans 928 So. 2d 537 La. 2006
    further refined this standard and held that "a taxpayer will not be allowed to compel the performance of a public duty by mandamus absent a showing of some special interest which is separate and distinct from the interest of the public at large."
  • Schoeffler v. Drake Hunting Club 919 So. 2d 822 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    the court stated: "A public right or duty may not be compelled or enforced by a private citizen without a showing of a personal grievance or interest in the outcome."
  • Harold Schoeffler v. Drake Hunting Club La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    the court stated: “A public right or duty may not be compelled or enforced by a private citizen without a showing of a personal grievance or interest in the outcome.” The court held that the League of Wom
  • Ralph v. City of New Orleans 921 So. 2d 988 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
    further refined this standard and held that "a taxpayer will not be allowed to compel the performance of a public duty by mandamus absent the showing of some special interest which is separate and distinct from the interest of the public at large."
  • WORLD TRADE CENTER v. All Taxpayers 908 So. 2d 623 La. 2005
    we were careful to point out that unlike a citizen attempting to compel the performance of a public duty, a citizen attempting to restrain unlawful action by a public entity is not required to demonstrate a special or particular interest distinct from that of the public at large.
  • Hudson v. City of Bossier 823 So. 2d 1085 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
    More recently, the Louisiana Supreme Court has discussed the requirements for standing in taxpayer suits in Louisiana Associated General Contractors v. Calcasieu Parish School Board, supra : we refined our previous standard and held a taxpayer will not be allowed to compel the performance of a public duty by mandamus absent a showing of some special interest which is separate and distinct from the interest of the public at large.
  • Sewell v. Huey 779 So. 2d 1003 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
  • East Baton Rouge Parish School Board v. State ex rel. Board of Trustees 700 So. 2d 945 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
    the Louisiana Supreme Court further refined this standard and held that a taxpayer will not be allowed to compel the performance of a public duty by mandamus absent a showing of some special interest which is separate and distinct from the interest of the public at large.
  • Meredith v. Ieyoub 700 So. 2d 478 La. 1997
    We held that "because plaintiffs seek to restrain the City Council from entering into certain contracts allegedly through an illegal process, plaintiffs are not required under League of Women Voters [ v. City of New Orleans, ] and its progeny to demonstrate a special or particular interest" which is distinct from the public at large.
  • McCall v. McCall 688 So. 2d 193 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
    Essentially, the court held that the McCalls have no personal interest in the litigation separate from the interest of the general public
  • City of Kenner Fire Department v. Municipal Fire & Police Civil Service Board of City of Kenner 685 So. 2d 325 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    “The exception of no right of action calls into question whether the plaintiff has standing or interest required under the law to bring the suit.”
  • CITIZEN COMMITTEE v. City of Lafayette 685 So. 2d 289 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
    the Supreme Court cited Bussie in recognizing the taxpayer's exception to the requirement of a particular or special interest, stating: when a public official charged with the unlawful performance or the refusal to perform a legal duty discriminates against a taxpayer by increasing his tax burden or otherwi
  • Alliance for Affordable Energy v. Council of New Orleans 677 So. 2d 424 La. 1996
    further refined this standard and held that “a taxpayer will not be allowed to compel the performance of a public duty by mandamus absent a showing of some special interest which is separate and distinct from the interest of the public at large.” Id.
  • ALLIANCE FOR ENERGY v. Council 677 So. 2d 424 La. 1996
    further refined this standard and held that "a taxpayer will not be allowed to compel the performance of a public duty by mandamus absent a showing of some special interest which is separate and distinct from the interest of the public at large."
  • Municipal Employees' Retirement System v. Office of Rural Development 676 So. 2d 835 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    Id.; -47 (La.1980) (A taxpayer attempting to compel the performance of a public duty by a public entity is required to demonstrate a special or particular interest distinct from that of the public at large.)
  • Mouton v. Dept. of Wildlife & Fisheries 657 So. 2d 622 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
    [6] the Louisiana Supreme Court held that a public right or duty may not be compelled or enforced by a private citizen without a showing of a personal grievance or interest in the outcome.
  • McCall v. McCall 651 So. 2d 878 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
    Defendant's assert that in order to meet this requirement, a in support thereof.
  • Neighborhood Action Committee v. State 652 So. 2d 693 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
  • Wooden v. Louisiana Tax Com'n 650 So. 2d 1157 La. 1995
    [5] While the assessor argues alternatively to his main argument that he has standing as a citizen of Morehouse Parish to bring the action, control the decision of this issue.
  • State v. Louisiana Riverboat Gaming Com'n 640 So. 2d 1368 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
  • Murrill v. Edwards 613 So. 2d 185 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
    Louisiana Associated General Contractors
  • Nevers v. Bogalusa City School Board 610 So. 2d 877 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
  • Richardson v. Reeves 600 So. 2d 138 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
  • Louisiana Associated Gen. Contr. v. Calcasieu 586 So. 2d 1354 La. 1991
    we refined our previous standard and held a taxpayer will not be allowed to compel the performance of a public duty by mandamus absent a showing of some special interest which is separate and distinct from the interest of the public at large.
  • Beevers v. JEFFERSON PARISH JUV. COURT 552 So. 2d 1317 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
  • Roy v. Avoyelles Parish School Bd. 552 So. 2d 63 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
    1982) articulates the rule as follows: the Supreme Court was careful to point out that where a citizen was seeking to restrain unlawful action by a public entity, that citizen was not required to have the special and peculiar or particular interest required of a plaintiff who was seeking to compel the performance of a public duty.
  • State v. MAYOR AND BD. OF ALDERMEN OF CITY OF TALLULAH 549 So. 2d 891 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
    The trial court found that intervenor had no right of action to compel public officials to perform their duties because intervenor had no special interest beyond that of citizens generally
  • FIRST FEDERAL S. & L. ASSOC. OF WARNER ROBINS, GA. v. Delta Towers, Ltd. 544 So. 2d 1331 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
  • Ricard v. State 544 So. 2d 1310 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
  • Lauer v. City of Kenner 536 So. 2d 767 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
    This article has been interpreted to mean that in cases questioning the actions of public boards, the plaintiff must have an interest which is distinct from the interests of the public at large
  • State v. Danzy 527 So. 2d 68 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
    the court stated: "A public right or duty may not be compelled or enforced by a private citizen without a showing of a personal grievance or interest in the outcome."
  • Bruneau v. Edwards 517 So. 2d 818 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
    Defendants reason that plaintiffs failed to meet the test enunciated in Louisiana Hotel-Motel Association, and, as such, do not have a right of action to institute this litigation.
  • Louisiana Tax Collections, Inc. v. Bear Creek Storage Co. 474 So. 2d 1337 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
  • Pillow v. Board of Commissioners 464 So. 2d 353 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
  • Windjammer, Inc. v. Hardy 458 So. 2d 493 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
  • Schaefer v. Treen 444 So. 2d 188 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • Davis v. Franklin Parish School Bd. 412 So. 2d 1131 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
    the Supreme Court was careful to point out that where a citizen was seeking to restrain unlawful action by a public entity, that citizen was not required to have the special and peculiar or particular interest required of a plaintiff who was seeking to compel the performance of a public duty.
  • J. Weingarten, Inc. v. Northgate Mall, Inc. 404 So. 2d 896 La. 1981
  • Terrebonne Parish Police Jury v. Matherne 405 So. 2d 314 La. 1981
    Abbott v. Parker, 259 La.
  • Pierce v. Board of Supervisors 392 So. 2d 465 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980