Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Chandler v. City of Shreveport, 124 So. 143.

17 citing documents.

Moody v. City of New Orleans 769 So. 2d 670 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal in Falgout makes reference to a , 124 So.
Kemper v. Don Coleman, Jr., Builder, Inc. 746 So. 2d 11 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
Winchell v. Johnson Properties, Inc. 640 So. 2d 399 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
City of Baton Rouge v. Cooley 418 So. 2d 1321 La. 1982
55 , (1929); State v. Cullens, 186 La.
Pennebaker v. Parish of Jefferson 383 So. 2d 484 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
We arrive at this conclusion with full recognition that the allegations of the petition are rather vague but under the stated principles sufficient to state a cause of action under Eschete v. City of New Orleans, supra, , 124 So.
David v. Dixie Rice Agricultural Corp. 379 So. 2d 62 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
Walters v. Thrasher 381 So. 2d 557 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
Romero v. Town of Welsh 370 So. 2d 1286 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
Falgout v. St. Charles Sewerage Dist. No. 3 351 So. 2d 206 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1977
Sharon v. Connecticut Fire Insurance Co. 270 So. 2d 900 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
Hamilton v. City of Shreveport 180 So. 2d 30 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1966
65 (where the court held a police jury could be enjoined, as could any private individual, from interfering with natural drainage); [124] So.
State v. Rankins 30 So. 2d 837 La. 1947
55 , ; State v. Bryan, 175 La.
Alexander v. City of Shreveport 17 So. 2d 716 La. 1944
With respect to the charge made in the petition that there has been a diversion of water over plaintiff’s property, his counsel cite and rely on several decisions of this court, , 124 So.
Adams v. Town of Ruston 193 So. 688 La. 1940
State v. Smith 192 So. 106 La. 1939
State v. Hart 164 So. 166 La. 1935
55 , ; Article 516 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; Constitution of Louisiana of 1921, Art. 7, § 10.
State v. Taylor 133 So. 349 La. 1931
55 , , the exact question we are considering was presented to this court, and it was there held that: “However, the question propounded would have been admissible under the jurisprudence as it stood prior to the adoption of the Code of Criminal Procedure.