DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Herlitz Const. Co., Inc. v. Hotel Investors of New Iberia, Inc., 396 So. 2d 878.

562 citing documents.

  • LaCroix v. LaCroix 742 So. 2d 1036 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
  • Winninger v. STATE, THROUGH DEPT. OF SS 740 So. 2d 236 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    2d Cir.1989); see also, Herlitz Construction Co., Inc. v. Hotel Investors of New Iberia, Inc., and La.
  • Winninger v. State ex rel. Department of Social Services 740 So. 2d 236 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    2d Cir.1989); see also, Herlitz Construction Co., Inc. v. Hotel Investors of New Iberia, Inc., and La.
  • State MacH. Sales v. Gravity Drainage 5 742 So. 2d 26 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    Subsequently, on May 30, 1997, this court declined to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction asserting that the criteria set forth in Herlitz Construction Co., Inc. v. Hotel Investors of New Iberia, Inc., had not been met.
  • Colson v. LOUISIANA STATE RACING COM'N 726 So. 2d 432 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
  • Dixon v. BW Farrell, Inc. 713 So. 2d 1255 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    However, we decline to do so, finding that the ruling at issue does not meet the criteria of Herlitz Construction Company, Inc. v. Hotel Investors of New Iberia, Inc., (La.
  • Charlet v. Legislature of State 713 So. 2d 1199 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    Herlitz Const. Co., Inc. v. Hotel Investors of New Iberia, Inc., (per curiam).
  • RICHMOND EX REL. RICHMOND v. Dow 712 So. 2d 149 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
    All three defendants moved for a (La.
  • Best Fishing, Inc. v. Rancatore 706 So. 2d 161 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
    In Herlitz Construction Company, Inc. v. Hotel Investors of New Iberia, Inc., the Louisiana Supreme *167 Court directed appellate courts to consider an application for supervisory writs under their supervisory jurisdiction, even though relief may be ultimately available to the applicant on appeal, when the trial court judgment was arguably incorrect, a reversal would terminate the li
  • RCS Gaming, Inc. v. State ex rel. Louisiana Gaming Control Board 705 So. 2d 1122 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
    See Herlitz Construction Company, Inc. v. Hotel Investors of New Iberia, Inc.
  • Carr v. GAF, Inc. 702 So. 2d 1384 La. 1997
    Herlitz Construction Co., Inc. v. Hotel Investors of New Iberia, Inc., (per curiam).
  • State v. Sprint Communications Co., LP 699 So. 2d 1058 La. 1997
  • Addington v. McGehee 698 So. 2d 702 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
  • Douglass v. Alton Ochsner Medical Foundation 695 So. 2d 953 La. 1997
    Herlitz Const. Co. v. Hotel Investors of New Iberia, Inc., (La.
  • Leonard v. Dimensional Oilfield Services, Inc. 686 So. 2d 815 La. 1996
    Co. v. Hotel Investors of New Iberia, Inc.
  • Gullatt v. Newell Industries, Inc. 688 So. 2d 1191 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
    Herlitz Construction Company, Inc. v. Hotel Investors of New Iberia, Inc.
  • Meany v. Meany 685 So. 2d 356 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1996
    Defendant requests, in the alternative, that this Court exercise its supervisory jurisdiction pursuant to Herlitz Construction Co. v. Hotel Investors of New Iberia, Inc.
  • Leonard v. Dimensional Oilfield Services, Inc. 682 So. 2d 1254 La. 1996
    Co. v. Hotel Investors of New Iberia, Inc.
  • Chehardy, Sherman, Ellis, Breslin & Murray v. AMERASIA CO. INC. 694 So. 2d 355 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1996
    Herlitz Construction Co. v. Hotel Investors of New Iberia, Inc., n. 1 (La.1981); Sales Tax Collector v. Eckco Fabricators, Inc., (La.App.
  • Cabahug v. Text Shipping Co. 681 So. 2d 345 La. 1996
    Herlitz Construction Co., Inc., v. Hotel Investors of New Iberia, Inc.
  • State v. Sprint Communications Co. L.P. 679 So. 2d 382 La. 1996
  • Blanchard v. State ex rel. Parks & Recreation Commission 673 So. 2d 1000 La. 1996
  • Blanchard v. STATE EX REL. PARKS & REC. COMM'N 673 So. 2d 1000 La. 1996
  • Tucker v. Ochsner Health Plan 674 So. 2d 1052 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
    OHP then appealed the judgment, as authorized by Herlitz Const. Co. v. Hotel Investors of New Iberia, Inc., and McInnis Bros. v. Peoples Water Service, 28,216 (La.App.2d Cir. 1/24/96), .
  • Plauche v. Plauche 673 So. 2d 1053 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1996
    Co. v. Hotel Investors of New Iberia, Inc.
  • McINNIS BROS. CONSTR., INC. v. PEOPLES WATER SERVICE CO. 666 So. 2d 1323 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
    Herlitz Construction Co., Inc. v. Hotel Investors of New Iberia, Inc., Olinde v. Couvillion, 94-1275 (La.App.
  • Avenal v. State, Dept. of Nat. Resources 668 So. 2d 1150 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
    art. 2083; See also, Herlitz Construction Co., Inc. v. Hotel Investors of New Iberia, Inc.
  • Whitney Nat. Bank v. Rockwell 661 So. 2d 1325 La. 1995
    Co. v. Hotel Investors of New Iberia, Inc.
  • McCrea v. Mobil Oil Corp. 662 So. 2d 143 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
    Herlitz Construction Co., Inc. v. Hotel Investors of New Iberia, Inc., Artigue v. St.
  • Wheelahan v. Ungar & Wheelahan P.L.C. 657 So. 2d 789 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
    Const. Co., Inc. v. Hotel Investors of New Iberia, Inc.
  • Degruise v. Houma Courier Newspaper Corp. 657 So. 2d 580 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
    This court, on April 23, 1993, under docket number 93 CW 0503, denied Federated's writ application, noting that the criteria set forth in Herlitz Construction Company, Inc. v. Hotel Investors of New Iberia, Inc., (La.
  • Olinde v. Couvillion 650 So. 2d 1241 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
    Herlitz Construction Co., Inc. v. Hotel Investors of New Iberia, Inc., (La.
  • Apolinar v. Professional Construction Services, Inc. 650 So. 2d 1239 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
    See also Herlitz Construction Company, Inc. v. Hotel Investors of New Iberia, Inc.
  • Short v. Giffin 648 So. 2d 937 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
    Thus, in accordance with La.Code art. 929 (West Supp.1994) art. 929 1 and in light of Herlitz Construction Company, Inc. v. Hotel Investors of New Iberia, Inc., 2 , this Court vacated the judgment of the trial court and remanded for a trial of the exceptions.
  • Williams v. City of New Orleans 637 So. 2d 1130 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
    Mr. Tatum's article emphasized the following language from Herlitz Const. Co., Inc. v. Hotel Investors of New Iberia, Inc., : If appellate courts have appellate jurisdiction over interlocutory judgments which cause irreparable injury, then the courts' supervisory jurisdiction logically extends to interlocutory judgments that do not cause irreparable injury.
  • Benoit v. Louisiana Water Co. 640 So. 2d 396 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
    This court acknowledged that the Louisiana Supreme Court in |3Herlitz Construction Company, Inc. v. Hotel Investors of New Iberia, Inc., had expressly mentioned that a ruling on venue causes irreparable injury such that an appeal can be taken as provided by La.Code Civ.Proc.
  • Alleman v. Noel 640 So. 2d 373 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
    The criteria set forth in Herlitz Construction Company, Inc. v. Hotel Investors of New Iberia, Inc., are not met.
  • Alexander v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Insurance Co. 640 So. 2d 372 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
    The criteria set forth in Herlitz Construction Company, Inc. v. Hotel Investors of New Iberia, Inc., are not met.
  • Martinez v. Breaux Mart, Inc. 631 So. 2d 471 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
    Comment (b) to this article refers to some early Supreme Court decisions which recognized the discretion of the trial judge to refer an exception to the merits rather than to dispose of it prior to trial, but this comment must be considered in the light of the more recent Supreme Court decision in Herlitz Construction Company v. Hotel Investors of New Iberia, Inc., (La.App.
  • Blitch Architects, Inc. v. Avenue Partnership 626 So. 2d 394 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
    4 Cir.1989); Herlitz Construction Co. Inc. v. Hotel Investors of New Iberia, Inc., (La.App.
  • Duet v. Lucky 621 So. 2d 168 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
    See also Herlitz Construction Company Inc. v. Hotel Investors of New Iberia, Inc.
  • Everything on Wheels Subaru, Inc. v. Subaru South, Inc. 616 So. 2d 1234 La. 1993
    See Herlitz *1242 Construction Co. v. Hotel Investors of New Iberia, Inc., (an appellate court should consider an application under its supervisory jurisdiction, even though relief may be ultimately available to the applicant on appeal, when there is no factual dispute, reversal of the interlocutory judgment will terminate the litigation, and the judgment appears palpably wrong).
  • Branch v. Willis-Knighton Medical Center 607 So. 2d 883 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
    Furthermore, the factors set forth in Herlitz Construction Company, Inc. v. Hotel Investors of New Iberia, Inc., are satisfied in this case, unlike the matters referred to by plaintiffs in which pertinent facts were disputed.
  • Jowers v. State ex rel. Department of Health & Hospitals 610 So. 2d 841 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
    We declined to exercise our supervisory jurisdiction on grounds that the criteria set forth in Herlitz Construction Company, Inc. v. Hotel Investors of New Iberia, Inc., were not met.
  • Tinsley v. Tinsley 602 So. 2d 1153 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
  • URBAN MGT. CORP. v. Shreveport Airport Auth. 602 So. 2d 1055 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
    Herlitz Construction Company, Inc. v. Hotel Investors of New Iberia, Inc.
  • A & P Boat Rentals, Inc. v. American Lloyd's 592 So. 2d 1361 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
    1986), citing Herlitz Construction Company, Inc., v. Hotel Investors of New Iberia, Inc., (La.App.
  • MVG v. Lucas 590 So. 2d 1322 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
    Herlitz Construction Company, Inc. v. Hotel Investors of New Iberia, Inc.
  • Persilver v. Louisiana Department of Transportation 592 So. 2d 1344 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
    NOTES [1] Prior to Herlitz Construction Company, Inc. v. Hotel Investors of New Iberia, Inc., it was the general practice in the courts of appeal that supervisory writs were not granted unless there was clear trial court error causing irreparable injury or an ordinary appeal would not be an adequate remedy in practical fact.
  • Watson v. Sanders 583 So. 2d 151 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
    The district court denied summary judgment, in which the Supreme Court stated: When the overruling of the [peremptory] exception is arguably incorrect, when a reversal will terminate the litigation, and when there is no dispute of fact to be resolved, judicial efficiency and fundamental fairness to the litigants dictates that the merits of the applic