No. 2000-CA-1879 Precedential Processed

Ross v. City of New Orleans

Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit · Filed November 21, 2001 · 808 So. 2d 751

Cited by

A-Mmed Ambulance, Inc. v. Community Care, LLC D/B/A Community Care Hospital La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2024
Moore v. Choice Foundation 274 So. 3d 33 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
Mary Smith Patton v. David Self and William Hadlock La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
Patton v. Self 952 So. 2d 874 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
Celia Ann Marks v. Ohmeda, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
Marks v. Ohmeda, Inc. 871 So. 2d 1148 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
Young v. Fitzpatrick 865 So. 2d 969 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
Cornelia E. Young v. Kevin Fitzpatrick La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004

Authorities cited

Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.

Kelly v. Boh Bros. Const. Co., Inc. 694 So. 2d 463
Cajun Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. v. McNamara 452 So. 2d 212
Gabriel v. Hobbs 804 So. 2d 853

Opinion text

ON APPLICATION FOR REHEARING. I,PER CURIAM. We grant rehearing for the sole purpose of clarifying whether the actions of the City of New Orleans (“NOPD”) and the Jefferson Parish Sheriffs Office' (“JPSO”) constituted a joint venture. We find that the actions of the NOPD and the JPSO did not constitute a joint venture. The essential elements of a joint venture are the same as a partnership. Thus, a joint venture is deemed to exist when two or more parties combine their property, labor, skill, etc. in the conduct of the venture for joint profit or benefit, with each having some right of control. Kelly v. Boh Bros. Construction Co., Inc., 96-1051 (La.App. 5 Cir. 4/9/97) 694 So.2d 463 (citing Cajun Elec. Power Co-op., Inc. v. McNamara, 452 So.2d 212 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1984)). Upon review of these factors, we find that the actions of the NOPD and JPSO did not constitute a joint venture because the essence of a joint venture is typically for the purpose of pecuniary gain. See Gabriel v. Hobbs, 01-538 (La.App. 4 Cir. 12/19/01) , 804 So.2d 853 . |2In all other respects, this Court reaffirms our judgment in the original opinion. 11 ARMSTRONG J., concurs in the result. I concur in the result reached in the majority opinion.