DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Redfearn v. Creppel, 455 So. 2d 1356.

32 citing documents.

  • Williams v. ABC Insurance Co. 209 So. 3d 411 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    Nugent, 206 So.3d at 376 ( (La.
  • Nugent v. Car Town of Monroe, Inc. 206 So. 3d 369 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
    Salem v. City of Alexandria, 2010-1039 (La.App.
  • Faubourg Marigny Improvement Ass'n v. City of New Orleans 195 So. 3d 606 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
  • Mannino's P & M Texaco Service Center, Inc. v. City of New Orleans 173 So. 3d 1186 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
  • Vieux Carre Property Owners v. City of New Orleans 216 So. 3d 873 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    A nonconforming use is defined as “[a] use which lawfully existed prior to the enactment of a zoning ordinance, and which is maintained after the effective date of the ordinance although it does not comply with the use restrictions applicable to the area in which it is situated.” -59 (La.
  • Spilsbury v. City of New Orleans 136 So. 3d 253 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    The Louisiana Supreme Court has described a non-conforming use of property as "[a] use which lawfully existed prior to the enactment of a zoning ordinance, and which is maintained after the effective date of the ordinance although it does not comply with the use restrictions applicable to the area in which it is situated.” see also Joubert v. City of New Orleans, Office of Safety & Permits, 09-0601, p. 3 (La.App.
  • Phillips' Bar & Restaurant, Inc. v. City of New Orleans 116 So. 3d 92 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
  • Tolmas v. Parish of Jefferson 156 So. 3d 653 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
  • Tolmas v. Parish of Jefferson 80 So. 3d 1260 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2011
  • Mike Salem v. City of Alexandria La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    Nonconforming use of property is “[a] use which lawfully existed prior to the enactment of a zoning ordinance, and which is maintained after the effective date of the ordinance although it does not comply with the use restrictions applicable to the area in which it is situated.” (emphasis added).
  • Salem v. City of Alexandria 56 So. 3d 457 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    Nonconforming use of property is “[a] use which lawfully existed prior to the enactment of a zoning ordinance, and which is maintained after the effective date of the ordinance although it does not comply with the use restrictions applicable to the area in which it is situated.” (emphasis added).
  • Vieux Carre Property Owners, Residents & Associates, Inc. v. Hotel Royal, L.L.C. 55 So. 3d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    IfiSimilarly, affd in part, rev’d in part on other grounds, also relied upon by Appellants, involved two plaintiff homeowners seeking injunctive relief from a hotel’s alleged violations of zoning ordinances.
  • Williams v. Parish of St. Bernard 49 So. 3d 520 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2010
    |4The Louisiana Supreme Court described a nonconforming use of property as “[a] use which lawfully existed prior to the enactment of a zoning ordinance, and which is maintained after the effective date of the ordinance although it does not comply with the use restrictions applicable to the area in which it is situated ...” (La.
  • Cordes v. Board of Zoning Adjustments & Audubon, LLC 31 So. 3d 504 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    Redfearn v. Creppel, 83-2188 (La.1984), .
  • Joubert v. City of New Orleans, Office of Safety & Permits 30 So. 3d 186 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    The Louisiana Supreme Court in Redfearn v. Cropped described a non-conforming use of property *189 as: “[a] use which lawfully existed prior to the enactment of a zoning ordinance, and which is maintained after the effective date of the ordinance although it does not comply with the use restrictions applicable to the area in which it is situated, ...”
  • FQCPRQ v. Brandon Investments, LLC 930 So. 2d 107 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
    See Craig v. City of New Orleans Board of Zoning Adjustments, XXXX-XXXX (La.App.
  • Craig v. City of New Orleans Board of Zoning Adjustments 903 So. 2d 530 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
    The Louisiana Supreme Court, described the purpose of permitting nonconforming uses of property: A use which lawfully existed prior to the enactment of a zoning ordinance, and which is maintained after the effective date of the ordinance although it does not comply with the use restrictions applicable to the area in which it is s
  • Weisler v. BD. OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS 745 So. 2d 1259 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
    Moreover, -1359 (La.1984): The permitted continuation of a nonconforming use is designed to avoid the hardship, injustice and doubtful constitutionality of compelling the immediate removal of objectionable buildings and uses already in the area.
  • Vieux Carre Prop. Owners v. Decatur Hotel 746 So. 2d 806 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
    4 Cir.1983), reversed in part
  • 7004 St. Charles Ave. Corp. v. City of New Orleans 704 So. 2d 909 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
    [5] wherein the Columns Hotel was recognized as having nonconforming status as a hotel even though all of the rooms did not have a connecting bath.
  • Palm Air Civic Ass'n v. Syncor International Corp. 667 So. 2d 1185 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    4th Cir.1983), rev’d in part on other grounds, involved a judgment which enjoined the owners of the Columns Hotel from operating a bar and/or lounge and serving ¿alcoholic beverages upon the premises except to guests at private parties.
  • City of New Orleans v. JEB Properties, Inc. 609 So. 2d 986 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
  • City of New Orleans v. Hamilton 602 So. 2d 112 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
    citing Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 , 47 S.Ct.
  • Phi Le v. Hicks 598 So. 2d 1087 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
  • Elysian Fields, Inc. v. St. Martin 600 So. 2d 69 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
  • Parish of Jefferson v. Chamel 591 So. 2d 796 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
    4th Cir.1983), affirmed in part, reversed in part on other grounds at issue was whether or not a building had acquired a legal nonconforming status as a hotel.
  • City of New Orleans v. Elms 566 So. 2d 626 La. 1990
    1 E. Yokley, Zoning Law and Practice § 2-2 (4th ed. 1978)
  • Brown v. City of New Orleans 560 So. 2d 983 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
  • City of New Orleans v. Elms 542 So. 2d 17 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
  • City of New Orleans v. Elms 498 So. 2d 773 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
  • East Church Street Ass'n v. Dangerfield 491 So. 2d 417 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    4th Cir.1983), aff’d in part, rev’d in part
  • Kuhn v. Sciortino 483 So. 2d 666 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986