DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Barbe v. City of Lake Charles, 45 So. 2d 62.

19 citing documents.

  • Little Capitol of Louisiana, Inc. v. Town of Henderson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
  • Little Capitol of Louisiana, Inc. v. Town of Henderson 128 So. 3d 1019 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
  • Hollingsworth v. City of Minden 793 So. 2d 1265 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
  • Malveaux v. City of Lafayette 679 So. 2d 1025 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    As we said in Barbe v. City of Lake Charles, supra [ ] 45 So.2d [62] at 70 [ (1949) ] “With reference to annexation, what is reasonable or unreasonable depends largely upon the particular facts in any given situation....’ The court considers generally the benefits and detriments to both the municipality and the area to be annexed.
  • Redmond v. City of Lafayette 594 So. 2d 566 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
    103 , 58 L.Ed.2d 122 (1978); , (1949); LeBlanc v. City of Lafayette, supra ; (La.App.
  • LeBlanc v. City of Lafayette 543 So. 2d 1040 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
    103 , 58 L.Ed.2d 122 (1978); , (1949); (La.App.
  • Kel-Kan Inv. Corp. v. Village of Greenwood 428 So. 2d 401 La. 1983
    See also: , (1950); Pyle v. City of Shreveport, 215 La.
  • Kel-Kan Inv. Corp. v. Village of Greenwood 393 So. 2d 818 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1981
  • Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. v. City of Shreveport 354 So. 2d 1362 La. 1978
    (1949), plaintiffs contend the signers of a petition for annexation may withdraw their assent at any time before the completion of all statutory prerequisites to adoption of the ordinance by the City Council.
  • City of Monroe v. Noe 340 So. 2d 616 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1976
  • Grice v. Mayor of Morgan City 164 So. 2d 370 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
    For example, , , in a suit filed within the 30 day period, the validity of the annexation ordinance was attacked on the ground of an insufficient assessor’s certificate, inaccurate land description, and insufficient number of signatures and amount of assessed value.
  • State ex rel. Langridge v. Harris 138 So. 2d 197 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1962
  • Dupre v. Mayor & Board of Aldermen of City of Houma 126 So. 2d 637 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
    is confirmatory of the provisions of LSA-R.S.
  • Nix v. Village of Castor 116 So. 2d 99 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1959
    Our jurisprudence has uniformly, and without exception, established the additional principle that the burden of proving the unreasonableness of the ordinance rests upon the opponents and must be made to appear by abundant evidence; , ; Breland v. City of Bogalusa, La.App., ; Cheshire v. City of Minden, La.App., ; Hider v. Town of Lake Providence, La.App., .
  • Dupre v. Consolidated Underwriters 99 So. 2d 522 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
    at page 67 (syllabi 8, 9), which justify refusal to permit amendment to assert a different cause of action although praying for the same relief.
  • Hider v. Town of Lake Providence 91 So. 2d 387 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1956
    257 , ; Barbe v. City of Lake Charles, 1949, , .
  • Cheshire v. City of Minden 83 So. 2d 526 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1955
    973 , ; , ; Harvey Canal Land & Improvement Co. v. Gelbke, 166 La.
  • Doise v. Town of Elton 64 So. 2d 238 La. 1953
  • Doise v. Town of Elton 56 So. 2d 604 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1952
    in which it stated: “Appellants’ last contention is that Ordinance 701 of the City of Lake Charles is invalid in that it seeks to extend unreasonably the limits of the City of Lake Charles.