Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

McIntire v. Carpenter

202 So. 2d 297 (La. Ct. App. 1967)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
McIntire v. Carpenter

11 Citing cases

  1. Charbonnet v. Hayes

    318 So. 2d 917 (La. Ct. App. 1975)   Cited 22 times
    In Charbonnet v. Hayes, 318 So.2d 917 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1975), we stated that the contestant has the burden of showing the opposing candidate has not met this requirement.

    In the previous constitutional provision, Art. 3, § 9 of the Constitution of 1921, the requirement was that a representative candidate be an "actual resident". See Stavis v. Engler, 202 So.2d 672 (La.App. 1967) and McIntire v. Carpenter, 202 So.2d 297 (La.App. 1967). The substitution of the word "domiciled" for "resident" effects a considerable change in the requirements of candidacy.

  2. Brown v. Democratic Committee, Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Third District

    238 So. 2d 48 (La. Ct. App. 1970)   Cited 11 times
    In Brown v. Democratic Committee, 238 So.2d 48 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1970), the Louisiana 4th Circuit Court of Appeal established a test that an individual is "required to maintain such a relation with the place or premises so selected as will entitle him at his will, and without making new arrangements therefor upon each return to occupy such place whenever his necessities or pleasure require, and this without having to ask the permission of someone else."

    And, "We have done that [spent a week in Hahnville] many times, we have spent as long as a week and more, frequently we spent like three days." As a qualitative concept, the cases which have rejected a candidate include Hall v. Godchaux, supra, already discussed, and McIntire v. Carpenter, 202 So.2d 297 (La.App. 1967). In McIntire, the candidate was a doctor whose only claim to the additional residence was "[spending] one or two nights a week sleeping on a small ambulance cot which was located in his office", which also contained a "hot-plate" and a refrigerator.

  3. Lowe v. O'Meara

    482 F.2d 1373 (5th Cir. 1973)   Cited 7 times
    Holding that an attempt to cancel an insurance policy at 12:01 a.m. is of no effect because it conflicts with Louisiana law which provides that, in computation of time, only whole days, not fractions thereof, are considered.

    Thus, cancellation of the policy would not have been effective until September 4. Although Market's notice stated that cancellation would be effective at 12:01 A.M., September 3, 1970, this is of no effect because it would have resulted in a notice period shorter than that required by the policy itself. Moreover, this attempt to cancel at the beginning of the day conflicts with the Louisiana law which provides that, in computation of time, only whole days, not fractions thereof, are considered. McIntire v. Carpenter, 202 So.2d 297 (La.App. 1967); Housing Auth. v. Miller, supra. The trial court did not err in refusing a new trial on the basis of the remarks during the voir dire examination or because of the alleged excessiveness of the verdict.

  4. White v. Manchin

    173 W. Va. 526 (W. Va. 1984)   Cited 33 times
    Affirming one year residential requirement for state senator

    This Court rejected a similar argument in Shaw v. Shaw, supra, stating in Syllabus Point 3 that, "A change in residence for convenience in working conditions does not, without more, indicate a change in domicile." See also McIntire v. Carpenter, 202 So.2d 297, 300 (La.App. 1967) (rejecting a candidate's contention that he resided in his office which contained a small cot, a hot plate, and a refrigerator). Finally, we note that it is well established in this jurisdiction that, "A domicile once acquired is presumed to continue until it is shown to have been changed."

  5. Brown v. Democratic Committee, Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Third District

    238 So. 2d 531 (La. 1970)

    Even under the facts found by the Court of Appeal the result is contrary to law. See Hall v. Godchaux, 149 La. 733, 90 So. 145; Melerine v. Dem. Exec. Comm., 164 La. 855, 114 So. 711; McIntire v. Carpenter, La.App., 202 So.2d 297. Writ denied Sept. 21, 1967.

  6. Postlethwaite v. Royal

    857 So. 2d 590 (La. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 2 times

    Moreover, it is well settled that in computing the time prescribed by law within which to perform an act, only whole days, not fractions thereof, are considered. McIntire v. Carpenter, 202 So.2d 297, 299 (La.App. 4 Cir.), writ denied, 251 La. 57, 202 So.2d 661 (1967). See alsoHousing Authority of Town of Lake Arthur v. T. Miller Sons, 239 La. 966, 981, 120 So.2d 494, 500 (1960).

  7. Dibos v. Bill Watson Ford, Inc.

    622 So. 2d 677 (La. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 32 times
    In Dibos v. Bill Watson Ford, Inc., 622 So.2d 677, 680 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1993), this Court held that the papers supporting the position for the party moving for the summary judgment are to be closely scrutinized while the opposing papers are to be indulgently treated, in determining whether mover has satisfied his burden.

    Plaintiff cites to La.C.C. art. 1784, as well as cases which state that parts of days may not be used in determining when an obligation became due. See La.C.C. art. 1784; Lowe v. O'Meara, 482 F.2d 1373 (5th Cir. 1973); McIntire v. Carpenter, 202 So.2d 297 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1967). With this argument we disagree.

  8. McNamara v. Coney

    566 So. 2d 648 (La. Ct. App. 1990)   Cited 1 times

    The above quoted findings of the trial court prove that the Canal Street address was Coney's business establishment but not his principal domestic establishment. On point is McIntire v. Carpenter, 202 So.2d 297 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1967). McIntire involved a medical doctor whose qualifications for public office had been challenged on grounds that he was not domiciled in the parish where he wished to run.

  9. State v. Durand

    461 So. 2d 1090 (La. Ct. App. 1985)   Cited 8 times
    In State v. Durand, 461 So.2d 1090 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1984), an informant purchased cocaine from the defendant and was told that should he need more, it would be available. A surveillance was conducted and other incidents of suspected drug trafficking were observed. The appellate court concluded that a man of reasonable caution could reasonably believe that drugs would be found on the premises ten days after issuance of the warrant.

    We find no interpretation of Art. 163; however, La.C.C.P. Art. 5059 (as to civil matters) has been construed to mean whole days and not parts or fractions. Lowe v. O'Meara, 482 F.2d 1373 (5th Cir. 1973); McIntire v. Carpenter, 202 So.2d 297 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1967). Although civil procedure is not dispositive here, we find it logically persuasive.

  10. Tomlinson v. Frazier

    407 So. 2d 1385 (La. Ct. App. 1982)   Cited 6 times

    Any mail received at the Diana Street house, therefore, probably was of an incidental nature. In McIntire v. Carpenter, 202 So.2d 297 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1967), this court addressed the question of residency of the plaintiff, a doctor who had a medical office in Jefferson Parish and was claiming residency in that parish. The plaintiff had a Jefferson Parish driver's license, a bank account in the parish, was a member of professional associations in the parish, was registered to vote in that parish, and was a Notary Public for Jefferson Parish.