DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Hobson v. Walker, 41 So. 2d 789.

15 citing documents.

  • Yokum v. 544 Funky, LLC 202 So. 3d 1065 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
  • Badke v. USA Speedway, LLC 139 So. 3d 1117 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
  • Parish of East Feliciana v. Guidry 923 So. 2d 45 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
  • Schexnayder v. Exxon Pipeline Co. 815 So. 2d 156 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
    App. 2d Cir.1991); (La.App.
  • Bartlett v. Browning-Ferris Industries 683 So. 2d 1319 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
  • Barrett v. TL James & Co. 671 So. 2d 1186 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
    King v. Western Club, Inc., (La.
  • Thornburg v. McMillin 392 So. 2d 1119 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
  • Easterly v. Carr 361 So. 2d 279 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
  • Ritchey v. Lake Charles Dredging & Towing Co. 230 So. 2d 346 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
    An injunction should not be granted except in those cases where the facts are clear and convincing, (2d Cir.1964); Hobson, (2d Cir.1949).
  • Woods v. Turbeville 168 So. 2d 915 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
    2 Cir., 1949) , is also appropriate: “The use of injunctive process which interferes with, restricts or restrains the exercise of the rights of those engaged in trade, business or commerce is one which has been carefully safeguarded and one which is not used except in those cases where the established facts are clear and convincing
  • Allen v. Albright 151 So. 2d 554 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
    2 Cir., 1949), is also appropriate: “The use of injunctive process which interferes with', restricts or restrains the exercise of the rights of those engaged in trade, business or commerce is one which has been carefully safeguarded and one which is not used except in those cases where the established facts are clear and convincing.
  • Ragusa v. American Metal Works, Inc. 97 So. 2d 683 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
  • Johnson v. Nora 87 So. 2d 757 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1956
    Other pertinent considerations are the nature of the locality and the reasonableness of the business itself; Haynes v. Smith, La.App., *760 ; Hobson v. Walker, La.App., ; Kellogg v. Mertens, La.App., ; Myer v. Minard, La.App., ; Moss v. Burke & Trotti, 198 La.
  • Haynes v. Smith 85 So. 2d 326 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
    this'court declared: “The use of injunctive process which interferes with, restricts or restrains the exercise of the rights of those engaged in trade, business or commerce is one which has been carefully safeguarded and one which is not used except in those cases where the established facts are clear and convi
  • Beauvais v. DC Hall Transport 49 So. 2d 44 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1950
    This Court, , had occasion to consider the authorities relative to what constitutes such excessive, unreasonable and disturbing noises, particularly during night hours, as to make a "nuisance."