Yokum v. Court

9 Citing cases

  1. Yokum v. Nicholas S. Karno II, Inc.

    126 So. 3d 723 (La. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 6 times

    In 2009–C–0248 , Karno argued, among other things, that the ordinance in question fails to give actual notice of the prohibited conduct. This Court noted in a similar case, Yokum v. Court of Two Sisters, Inc., 06–0732, p. 4 (La.App. 4 Cir. 11/21/06), 946 So.2d 671, a case in which Karno was named individually as a defendant and as the owner of the property leased to the restaurant, wherein this Court affirmed the grant of a preliminary injunction for violating the very same ordinance. We stated that “the trial judge's specific reference to a particular noise ordinance adequately informs the defendant, pursuant to La.Code Civ. Proc. art. 3605, of the act ‘sought to be restrained’ by the preliminary injunction.”

  2. Historic Restoration, Inc. v. RSUI Indemnity Co.

    955 So. 2d 200 (La. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 29 times
    Discussing Emergency Rule 23

    Even assuming that a preliminary injunction was being heard, and not a permanent injunction, the judgment cannot survive as a matter of law. Temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions are interlocutory orders designed to maintain the status quo between the parties until the ultimate issues in the case can be litigated. La.C.C.P. art. 3601; Yokum v. Court of Two Sisters, Inc., 06-0732 p. 3 (La.App. 4 Cir. 11/21/06), 946 So.2d 671, 673; Levine v. First National Bank of Commerce, 98-1069 (La.App. 5 Cir. 6/1/99), 738 So.2d 133; Haughton Elevator Division v. State, Division of Administration, 367 So.2d 1161 (La. 1979); Ridge Park v. Police Jury of Jefferson Parish, 210 La. 351, 27 So.2d 128 (1946); see also, Giron v. Housing Authority of City of Opelousas, 393 So.2d 1267, 1272 (La. 1981) (A preliminary injunction is only provisional and is not intended as a resolution of the merits of a controverted issue.) "The principal demand is determined on its merits only after a full trial under ordinary process, even though the hearing on the summary proceedings to obtain the preliminary injunction may touch upon or tentatively decide merit issues."

  3. State v. Jones

    285 So. 3d 1163 (La. Ct. App. 2019)   Cited 1 times

    Succession of Rock v. Allstate Life Ins. Co. , 340 So. 2d 1325 (La. 1976) ; Raia v. WWL-TV , 247 La. 1095, 176 So. 2d 390 (1965) ; Creech v. Creech , supra ; Borden v. West Carroll Parish Police Jury , supra ; West Consol. Co., Inc. v. Creole Fisheries , supra . See alsoWillis v. Letulle , 597 So. 2d 456 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1992) ; St. Pierre v. St. Pierre , 425 So. 2d 254 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1982) ; Strange v. Imperial Pools, Inc. , 520 So. 2d 1039 (La. App. 3 Cir. 1987), writ denied , 522 So. 2d 565 (La. 1988) ; Yokum v. Court of Two Sisters, Inc. , 2006-0732 (La. App. 4 Cir. 11/21/06), 946 So. 2d 671. When a record contains written reasons for judgment by a trial judge which reveal substantially all of the material testimony, and the record is sufficiently complete to permit full consideration of the issues presented on appeal, the reasons for judgment will be considered in lieu of the narrative of the facts.

  4. Yokum v. Pat O'Brien's Bar, Inc.

    99 So. 3d 74 (La. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 47 times

    Mr. Yokum has lodged numerous complaints against other businesses in the area, including The Court of Two Sisters, alleging violations of the same noise ordinances and statutes sought to be enforced against Pat O'Brien's in the present suit. See Yokum v. Court of Two Sisters, 06–0732 (La.App. 4 Cir. 11/21/06), 946 So.2d 671;Yokum v. Nicholas S. Karno II, Inc., 10–1239 (La.App. 4 Cir. 6/1/11), 66 So.3d 1240.

  5. McGee v. Mutter

    67 So. 3d 517 (La. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 3 times

    The inadequacy of the record, if any, is imputable to the appellant. Yokum v. Court of Two Sisters, Inc., 06-0732, p. 3 (La.App. 4 Cir. 11/21/06), 946 So.2d 671, 673; Jamie Land Co., Inc. v. Jones, 05-1471, p. 3 (La.App. 1 Cir. 6/9/06), 938 So.2d 738, 739. The inadequacy of an appellate record for which an appellant is responsible cannot operate to the detriment of an appellee.

  6. Asaro v. N. Orl.

    54 So. 3d 1214 (La. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 6 times

    To obtain a preliminary injunction, a petitioner must (1) demonstrate that he would suffer irreparable injury, loss, or damage without the injunction; (2) show entitlement to the relief sought; and (3) make a prima facie showing that he is likely to prevail on the merits. Yokum v. Court of Two Sisters, Inc., 06-0732, p. 3 (La.App. 4 Cir. 11/21/06), 946 So.2d 671, 673, citing Saunders v. Stafford, 05-0205, p. 5 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1/11/06), 923 So.2d 751, 754. A showing of irreparable harm is not required in cases where the conduct sought to be restrained is unlawful, such as when the conduct constitutes a direct violation of a prohibitory law.

  7. Asaro v. the City of New Orleans

    No. 2010-CA-0572 (La. Ct. App. Dec. 22, 2010)

    To obtain a preliminary injunction, a petitioner must (1) demonstrate that he would suffer irreparable injury, loss, or damage without the injunction; (2) show entitlement to the relief sought; and (3) make a prima facie showing that he is likely to prevail on the merits. Yokum v. Court of Two Sisters, Inc., 06-0732, p. 3 (La. App. 4 Cir. 11/21/06), 946 So.2d 671, 673, citing Saunders v. Stafford, 05-0205, p. 5 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1/11/06), 923 So.2d 751, 754. A showing of irreparable harm is not required in cases where the conduct sought to be restrained is unlawful, such as when the conduct constitutes a direct violation of a prohibitory law.

  8. E. N. Orl. v. Levy

    20 So. 3d 1131 (La. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 3 times

    This court reviews the trial court's granting of a preliminary injunction only to determine (1) if the trial court committed an error of law or (2) if granting the injunction was manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong. Yokum v. Court of Two Sisters, 2006-0732, p. 3 (La.App. 4 Cir. 11/21/06), 946 So.2d 671, 673. Pursuant to La. Code Civ. Proc. art. 3609, an injunction is issued "where irreparable injury, loss, or damage may otherwise result to the applicant. . . ." La. Code Civ. Proc. art. 3609.

  9. Dealers v. Rent

    980 So. 2d 89 (La. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 35 times

    4 Cir. 1/11/06), 923 So.2d 751, 754. A "[r]eview of the granting or denial of a preliminary injunction is whether the trial court committed an error of law or made a factual finding which is manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong." Id.; see also Yokum v. Court of Two Sisters, Inc., 2006-0732, p. 3 (La.App. 4 Cir. 11/21/06), 946 So.2d 671, 673. Where one or more legal errors interdict the trial court's fact-finding process, however, the manifest error standard becomes inapplicable, and the appellate court must conduct its own de novo review of the record.