Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Kelly v. Chadwick, 104 La. 719.

20 citing documents.

Missouri Pacific Railroad v. City of Opelousas 491 So. 2d 793 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Landry v. Parish of East Baton Rouge 352 So. 2d 656 La. 1977
Pleasant v. City of Shreveport 179 So. 2d 911 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
City of Alexandria v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad 126 So. 2d 351 La. 1961
414 , 415: "The question of the right of an abutting proprietor to contest a local assessment for paving on the ground of inequality or lack of benefit to the property has been settled adversely to the contention of the present defendant by the decision in Kelly v. Chadwick, *355 , 29 South.
Bell v. City of Shreveport 100 So. 2d 883 La. 1958
so said: “Since the Trial Judge permitted no evidence to support categories (a) and (b) above, this appeal is based on category (c) above and the principles of law set out in syllabus hereto.” In the Reasons of the trial judge the contentions set out in categories (a) and (b) were discussed and shown to be without substance, , 29 So.
Town of De Quincy v. Wood 27 So. 2d 314 La. 1946
Palmer v. Mayor and Board of Aldermen 197 So. 697 La. 1940
at page 250 : “ , 29 So.
Hagmann v. City of New Orleans 182 So. 753 La. 1938
rt is now thoroughly committed to the doctrine that the question of benefit vel non to particular property, included within a local assessment district because of its being similarly situated with all the other property of the district with reference to the work of public improvement for the cost of which the assessment, is levied, is a legislative and'not a judicial question.’ , 29 So.
Boagni v. Mayor and Board of Aldermen 149 So. 494 La. 1933
249, 250 , the court quoted approvingly from Cooley on Taxation, p. 429, as follows: “With the wisdom or unwisdom of special assessments, when ordered in cases in which they are admissible, the courts have no concern, unless there is plainly and manifestly such an abuse of power as takes the ease beyond the just limits of legislative discretion.” See, also, , 29 So.
Donaldson's Heirs v. City of New Orleans 118 So. 134 La. 1927
State ex rel. Briede v. City of New Orleans 1 La. App. 491 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1925
This acceptance is binding upon the property owners in the absence of allegation of fraud or error (Kelly vs. Chadwick, ; 29 South.
Delahoussaye v. Board of Trustees 103 So. 152 La. 1925
Town of De Ridder v. Lewis 72 So. 447 La. 1916
y, and therefore denies that the work and construction were performed in substantial compliance with the specifications of the said alleged contract and in a good and skillful manner.” In view, then, of the admissions made in their statement of the case, we are of opinion that nothing is disclosed which destroys the “conclusive effect of the acceptance of the work by the town.” , 29 South.
City of Shreveport v. Chatwin 71 So. 791 La. 1916
This acceptance is binding upon the property owners in the absence of allegation of fraud or error ( , 29 South.
City of Shreveport v. Shreveport Traction Co. 64 So. 414 La. 1914
The question of the right of an abutting proprietor to contest a , 29 South.
Fourmy v. Town of Franklin 52 So. 249 La. 1910
Stifft v. Burg 4 Teiss. 209 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1907
Burguieres v. Sanders 35 So. 478 La. 1903
The fact, however, is that the doctrine of the case of French v. Barber Asphalt Co. is substantially the same as that which had been announced by this court, , 29 South.
Bruning v. Chadwick 34 So. 90 La. 1903
ontractor shall not employ on the work any laborers except bona fide residents of the city of New Orleans, these laws and ordinances violate the provisions of the Constitution of the United States by which “the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several states.” , 29 South.
S. D. Moody & Co. v. Chadwick 108 La. 66 La. 1902