Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Lewis v. State, 20 So. 2d 917.

27 citing documents.

Kimball v. Allstate Ins. Co. 712 So. 2d 46 La. 1998
(1945), this court observed that by specifically delineating criteria for venue, citation and service, appellate jurisdiction, burden of proof, and the effect of the judgment, the 1898 and 1921 constitutional provision set forth "in great detail" the "procedure to be followed" and "the effect of th
Williams v. State, Dept. of Health and Hospitals 703 So. 2d 579 La. 1997
(1945), we stated: The Legislature, by adoption of Act 273 of 1942, having for its special purpose to permit Ms. Lewis to sue the State and to permit the State to stand in judgment in such a suit, and authorizing the payment of any judgment which might be rendered therein, placed the State in the same s
Pettis v. State Department of Hospitals 281 So. 2d 881 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1973
Beacon National Insurance Co. v. Durand 250 So. 2d 207 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
See La.Const.1898, § 192; La.Const.1913, § 192; La.Const.1921, Art. 3, § 35 (as amended pursuant to Act 385 of 1946 and Act 621 of 1960); , (1945).
Wall v. American Employers Insurance Co. 250 So. 2d 172 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
As correctly argued by counsel, , , establishes that where the legislature in authorizing suit also establishes venue, the provisions of the particular resolution supercede other procedural rules which would otherwise have applied.
Dauzat v. Crites 237 So. 2d 697 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1970
Thus, in the cases cited by appellant a , , the injury allegedly resulted from acts of cruelty and willful neglect by employees and the superintendent of a state hospital.
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Terral 206 So. 2d 307 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
2d Cir., 1957); , (1945).
Pierce v. Fidelity and Casualty Co. of New York 205 So. 2d 831 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
(1945) which decided two important points: "* * * Firstly, the court held that when the legislature authorized suit against the state to recover damages because of the wrongful acts of the hospital employees, it necessarily waived the state's immunity from liability for these wrongful acts.
Musmeci v. American Automobile Insurance Company 146 So. 2d 496 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
Fullilove v. US Casualty Company of New York 129 So. 2d 816 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1961
However, because of an unfortunate choice of language in a 1946 amendment (prompted, said the Supreme Court, , , and Crain v. State, La.App.
Stephens v. Natchitoches Parish School Board 115 So. 2d 793 La. 1959
In support of their first contention, counsel for plaintiff claim that although the 1946 constitutional amendment was passed as a , , and Crain v. State, La.App., , a fact we noted in the Duree decision, nevertheless it did not have the effect of restricting the power of the legislature with regard to waiver of governmental immunity from tort liability, which power was expressly recognized in the Lewis case.
Duree v. Maryland Casualty Company 114 So. 2d 594 La. 1959
282 , in which writs of certiorari and review were refused by this Court.” , , cited herein by plaintiff, we gave recognition to the distinction.
Duree v. STATE, DEPT. OF INSTITUTIONS 96 So. 2d 854 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
Stephens v. Natchitoches Parish School Board 96 So. 2d 396 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1957
Lewis v. State, 1945, , ; Jefferson Lake Sulphur Company, Inc. v. State, 1947, 213 La.
Duree v. State ex rel. Department of Institutions 96 So. 2d 854 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
Webb v. STATE, DEPT. OF INSTITUTIONS 91 So. 2d 156 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
Lewis v. State, 1945, , .
St. Julian v. STATE, DEPT. OF INSTITUTIONS 82 So. 2d 85 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
Before the 1946 amendment at least, the above constitutional provision was uniformly interpreted by our courts to mean that the Legislature could authorize suits stating a case of action based upon liability for the tortious acts of its officers and agents, Lewis v. State, 1945, , ; Varnado v. State, 1 Cir., 18 La.App.
Gilmore v. State 79 So. 2d 192 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
Furthermore, , , that the Legislature may authorize the institution of a suit against the State other than by the enactment of a law.
Marler v. State 78 So. 2d 26 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1955
The Supreme Court, , , overruled exceptions to the jurisdiction ratione personae and ratione materiae and a plea of unconstitutionality to a suit brought pursuant to Act 273 of 1942, which authorized the plaintiff there to institute suit against the State of Louisiana upon her claim for damages resulting from the perso
City of New Orleans v. Leeco, Inc. 76 So. 2d 387 La. 1954
361 ; Lewis v. State, 1945, , ; Jackson v. Coxe, 1945, 208 La.
Preuett v. STATE DEPT. OF HIGHWAYS 62 So. 2d 686 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1953
and Jefferson Lake Sulphur Co. v. State of Louisiana, 213 La.
Bordelon v. State 59 So. 2d 231 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1952
Jefferson Lake Sulphur Co., Inc. v. State, 213 La.
Fouchaux v. Board of Com'rs 53 So. 2d 128 La. 1951
*359 , , where it was contended that, -because the venue of the action was not stated in the body of Act 273 of 1942, it was violative of the mandatory provisions of Section 35 of Article 3 of the Constitution.
Tanner v. Beverly Country Club, Inc. 47 So. 2d 905 La. 1950
323 , ; , ; Jackson v. Coxe, 208 La.
Texas Co. v. State Mineral Board 44 So. 2d 841 La. 1949
Fouchaux v. Board of Com'rs of Port of New Orleans 35 So. 2d 738 La. 1948
Jefferson Lake Sulphur Co. v. State 34 So. 2d 331 La. 1947
The Constitution, in Section 35, Article 3, provides: “Whenever the Legislature shall authorize suit to be filed against the State, it shall provide a method of procedure and the effect of the judgments which may be rendered therein.” It will be seen at once that in this Article no express reference is made to the necessity of action by the Governor, , , in which we discussed the identical question.