DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite A. Sulka & Co. v. City of New Orleans, 23 So. 2d 224.

20 citing documents.

  • State ex rel. Arnaud v. State 188 So. 3d 1004 La. 2016
    865 (La.1930)); A. S ulka & , (1945) (“It is elementary that he who urges the unconstitutionallty of a law must especially plead its uncottatitutionality and show specifically wherein it is unconstitutional,..,").
  • State v. Overstreet 111 So. 3d 308 La. 2013
    1930)); A. Sulka & , (1945) (“It is elementary that he who urges the unconstitutionality of a law must especially plead its unconstitutionality and show specifically wherein it is unconstitutional....
  • Street v. Bridges 80 So. 3d 1153 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
    .In A. Sulka & , (1945), the supreme court held that a taxpayer who failed to comply with statutory requirements that he file' suit within 30 days of giving notice of intention to file suit could not maintain its action.
  • State of Louisiana v. v. L. G. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    865 (La.1930)); A. Sulka & So.2d 224, 229 (1945) (―It is elementary that he who urges the unconstitutionality of a law must especially plead its unconstitutionality and show specifically wherein it is unconstitutional.
  • State v. Hatton 985 So. 2d 709 La. 2008
    865 (La.1930)); A. Sulka & , (1945) ("It is elementary that he who urges the unconstitutionality of a law must especially plead its unconstitutionality and show specifically wherein it is unconstitutional....").
  • Comet Industries, Inc. v. Lawrence 600 So. 2d 85 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
    In support of its argument that this saving clause remedies the lack of a geographical restriction, Comet cites A. Sulka & , (1945); Moorman & Givens v. Parkerson, 127 La.
  • Bazley v. Tortorich 380 So. 2d 727 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
    A Sulka & , (1945); Stovall v. City of Monroe, 199 La.
  • Gillette Tire Distributors, Inc. v. City/Parish of East Baton Rouge 345 So. 2d 1255 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    A. Sulka & , (1945); Simpson v. City of New Orleans, 133 La.
  • Dunker v. Finance Funds Group, Inc. 333 So. 2d 331 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    410 (1938); A. Sulka & , (1945); Louisiana Land Co. v. Blakewood, 131 La.
  • Dickerson v. Hennen 249 So. 2d 251 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
    913 , ; A. Sulka & Company v. City of New Orleans, 1945, , ; and where the pleader’s allegations do not state in what respect he is being deprived of property or personal rights without due process of law, such allegations are mere conclusions and need not be considered by the court.
  • Osborn Funeral Home, Inc. v. Louisiana State Board of Embalmers 194 So. 2d 185 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
    A. Sulka & , (1945); Stovall v. City of Monroe, 199 La.
  • Parish of East Baton Rouge v. Varnado 153 So. 2d 100 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
    See A. Sulka & , , and Austin v. Town of Kinder, La.App., .
  • Michell v. Louisiana State Board of Optometry Exam. 146 So. 2d 863 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1962
    Sulka & , ; City of Shreveport v. Pedro, 170 La.
  • Bagneris v. City of New Orleans 130 So. 2d 421 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
  • Willis v. Flournoy 109 So. 2d 490 La. 1959
    Section 18, Article 10, Louisiana Constitution, LSA; Sulka & , .
  • Willis v. Flournoy 91 So. 2d 33 La. 1956
  • Olan Mills, Inc. of Tennessee v. City of Bogalusa 73 So. 2d 791 La. 1954
    This act of 1938 and its provisions were upheld by a majority opinion written by Mr. Justice Hawthorne in the case of Sulka & , .
  • Merrett v. Shreveport Municipal Fire & Police Civil Service Board 72 So. 2d 519 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
    913 , ; A. Sulka & Company v. City of New Orleans, 1945, , ; and where the pleadePs allegations do not state in what respect he is being deprived of property or pérsonal rights without due process of law, such allegations are.mere conclusions and need not be considered by the court.
  • Austin v. Town of Kinder 36 So. 2d 48 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1948
    Regardless of this, however, , , in which it was held that Act No. 16 of the Second Extraordinary Session of 1934 and Act No. 23 of the Second Extraordinary Session of 1935 had both been merged into Act No. 330 of 1938 by which they were amended and reenacted and they had, accordingly, ceased to exist.
  • State v. Herring 31 So. 2d 218 La. 1947
    410 ; A. Sulka & , .