Pique v. Ingolia
Pique v. Ingolia, 152 So. 2d 10 (La. 1963).
Cited by
- Christopher Lehman v. Henry Guinn, Kevin D. Millican, Stephen Vanhook,bobby Vasseur, and City of … La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2021
- N. Clark, L.L.C. v. Chisesi 206 So. 3d 1013 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
- Our Lady of the Lake Roman Catholic Church, Mandeville v. City of Mandeville, Planning … 147 So. 3d 186 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
- Zachary Housing Partners, L.L.C. v. City of Zachary 185 So. 3d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
- Rebel Electric, LLC v. Jacobs Builders, Inc. 34 So. 3d 1167 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
- Urban Housing of America, Inc. v. City of Shreveport 26 So. 3d 226 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
- D'Argent Properties, LLC v. City of Shreveport 15 So. 3d 334 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
- Guillot v. Brooks 651 So. 2d 345 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
- Leisure Villa Investors v. Life & Cas. Ins. Co. of Tenn. 527 So. 2d 520 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
- Lozes v. Waterson 513 So. 2d 1155 La. 1987
- Barkman v. Zoning Appeals Board 442 So. 2d 1237 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
- Redfearn v. Creppel 436 So. 2d 1210 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Ingolia v. Lobrano 152 So. 2d 7
- Pique v. Ingolia 144 So. 2d 638
Opinion text
SANDERS, Justice. This case is companion to Ingolia v. Lobrano, et al., La., 152 So.2d 7. The two cases were consolidated for argument before this Court. The facts have been fully stated in the companion case. In the instant proceeding, the defendant, Richard K. Ingolia, appealed from the judgment of the district court dismissing his rule to show cause why the plaintiff, Charles S. Pique, Jr., should not be ordered to file a proper document cancelling the notice of lis pendens, which he had recorded in the records of Plaquemines Parish. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment of the district court. 1 We granted certiorari. In Ingolia v. Lobrano, et al., supra, the Clerk of Court has been ordered to cancel the notice of lis pendens. No useful purpose can now be served by ordering the plaintiff herein to file a cancellation document. We have concluded that the proper disposition is to dismiss the rule to show cause without prejudice. For the reasons assigned, the judgment of the Court of Appeal, affirming the judgment of the district court, is reversed, and the rule to show cause is dismissed without prejudice. All costs in this Court are assessed against the plaintiff, Charles S. Pique, Jr. HAMITER, J., dissents. . 144 So.2d 638 .