Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Kuebler v. Martin, 578 So. 2d 113.

124 citing documents.

Bobby Hampton v. Governor Jeff Landry (2) La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2026
Bobby Hampton v. Governor Jeff Landry La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2026
Succession of Mary Grace Green Burley La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2024
Patricia Claverie v. Iam Tucker, Integrated Logistical Support, Inc. and the Sewerage and Water Board of New Orleans La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2023
Dln Holdings, L.L.C. v. Keith Guglielmo, Land Records Supervisor for Parish of Orleans La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2022
App. 2 Cir. 8/10/11), -31 (observing that “[when] reviewing rulings on exceptions of no cause of action, courts may consider exhibits attached to the petition in determining whether the law extends a remedy to the plaintiff under the factual allegations of the petition”); (La.
John Early, Jr. v. Karen Alston Early La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2021
Iberia Financial Services, LLC v. John A. Mitchell La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2020
Agrifund, LLC v. Radar Ridge Planting Co., Inc. and Thomas A. Dickerson La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2019
Simply stated, there are no 5 (La.
Stanley R. Palowsky, III, Individually, and on Behalf of Alternative Environmental Solutions, Inc. v. Allyson Campbell La. 2019
Llopis v. La. State Bd. of Dentistry 255 So. 3d 627 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
1993) ; Kuebler v. Martin , (La.
Quality Environmental Processes, Inc. v. IP Petroleum Co. 219 So. 3d 349 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
Wiles v. Wiles 193 So. 3d 397 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
Cox v. O'Brien 147 So. 3d 809 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
Hero Lands Co. v. Texaco, Inc.
In Re: Angela Marie Costanza and Chasity Shanelle Brewer La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
Black Water Marsh, LLC v. Roger C. Ferriss Properties, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
Hero Lands Co. v. Texaco, Inc.
Black Water Marsh, LLC v. Roger C. Ferriss Properties, Inc. 130 So. 3d 968 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Hero Lands Co. v. Texaco, Inc., (La.
2400 Canal, LLC v. Board of Supervisors 105 So. 3d 819 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Bogues v. Louisiana Energy Consultants, Inc. 71 So. 3d 1128 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
Creamer Brothers, Inc. v. Hicks, 39,799 (La.App.2d Cir.6/29/05), .
LOBELL v. Rosenberg 62 So. 3d 823 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
With respect to exceptions of no cause of action, the Louisiana Supreme Court has held that “pleadings must be construed reasonably so as to afford litigants their day in court, to arrive at the truth, and to do substantial justice.” (citing La.
Willie J. Zeno, Sr. v. Charles J. Foret La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
Touro Infirmary v. American Maritime Officer 24 So. 3d 948 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Foti v. Holliday 27 So. 3d 813 La. 2009
Veroline v. Priority One EMS 18 So. 3d 1273 La. 2009
Mayer v. Valentine Sugars, Inc.
Kuebel v. Department of Wildlife & Fisheries 14 So. 3d 20 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
“When it can reasonably do so, the court should maintain a petition against a peremptory exception so as to afford the litigant an opportunity to present his evidence.”
Talley v. St. Tammany Parish School Board 5 So. 3d 1060 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Bernberg v. Strauss 999 So. 2d 1184 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
Tallulah Const. v. Ne La Delta Development 982 So. 2d 225 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
art. 865 ("[e]very pleading shall be construed as to do substantial justice"); (La.
Smart Document Solutions, LLC v. Miller 970 So. 2d 49 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
Smart Document Solutions, LLC v. Michael B. Miller La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
art. 865 provides the general principle that pleadings are to be “construed as to do substantial justice.” The Louisiana Supreme Court has recently interpreted that provision to require that pleadings be construed “to afford litigants their day in court, to arrive at truth, and to do substantial justice.”
Meckstroth v. La. Dept. of Transp. and Dev. 962 So. 2d 490 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2007
Everything on Wheels Subaru, Inc. v. Subaru South, Inc., -36 (La.1993); (La.
Garza v. Louisiana State Racing Commission 961 So. 2d 1283 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
Discussion “The purpose of an exception of no cause of action is to determine the sufficiency in law of the petition and is triable on the face of the papers; for the purpose of determining the issue raised by this exception, the well-pleaded facts in the petition and any annexed documents must be accepted as true.” (citations omitted).
Rodney Bonner, Jr. and Lori Bonner v. Robert Foreman La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Bonner v. Foreman 943 So. 2d 1278 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Raspanti v. Litchfield 946 So. 2d 234 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
Scott Bennett v. Daigre's Automotive, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Bennett v. Daigre's Automotive, Inc. 930 So. 2d 208 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
Short v. Short 912 So. 2d 82 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
Mayer v. Valentine Sugars, Inc.
Knutsen v. Prince 911 So. 2d 404 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
Powell v. Dorris, 35,510 (La.App.
Creamer Brothers, Inc. v. Hicks 907 So. 2d 880 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
Winners Circle of Homes Inc. v. Barnette, 28,673 (La.App.
Van Meter v. Gutierrez 897 So. 2d 781 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
Paternostro v. Ocean Technical Services, Inc. 887 So. 2d 543 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
Hall v. Zen-Noh Grain Corp., 01-0324 (La.4/27/01), ; Everything on Wheels Subaru, Inc. v. Subaru South, Inc., Mayer v. Valentine Sugars, Inc., Hero Lands Co. v. Texaco, Inc.
Fleet Fuel, Inc. v. Mynex, Inc. 877 So. 2d 234 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
SOUTHERN TOOL & SUPPLY v. Beerman Precision, Inc. 862 So. 2d 271 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
Perritt v. Dona 849 So. 2d 56 La. 2003
Alomang v. Freeport-McMoRan, Inc. 811 So. 2d 98 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
Hero Lands Co. v. Texaco, Inc., (La.
MacK v. Evans 804 So. 2d 730 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
Rambo v. WILLIS-KNIGHTON MED. CENTER 793 So. 2d 254 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
Everything on Wheels Subaru, Inc. v. Subaru South, Inc., supra ; Martin v. Bigner, 27,694 (La.App.2d Cir.12/6/95), .
Jackson v. State Ex Rel. Dept. of Corrs. 785 So. 2d 803 La. 2001
Everything on Wheels Subaru, Inc. v. Subaru South, Inc., (La.
Hall v. Zen-Noh Grain Corp. 787 So. 2d 280 La. 2001
Everything on Wheels Subaru, Inc. v. Subaru South, Inc., Mayer v. Valentine Sugars, Inc., (La.
Taylor v. Hixson Autoplex of Alexandria, Inc. 781 So. 2d 1282 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by