Bossier v. Lovell

9 Citing cases

  1. Palmisano v. Mascaro

    611 So. 2d 632 (La. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 2 times

    See also Groom v. W.H. Ward Lumber Co. Inc., 432 So.2d 984 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1983); Louisiana Power Light Co. V. Mecom, 357 So.2d 596 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1978). The limited partners cite the case of Bossier v. Lovell, 410 So.2d 821 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1982), concerning the fiduciary obligation of the general partner, as requiring the general partner to give full consultation and gain consent of the in commendam partners, to sell partnership assets. However, in Bossier, the partnership agreement gave the general partner absolute authority for the specific purpose of building and operating an apartment complex.

  2. Harvey v. State

    C/W NO. 2014-CA-0978 (La. Ct. App. Dec. 16, 2015)

    In so concluding, we have considered, and rejected, the argument by Harvey that an exception to the usual requirement of irreparable harm applies in this case. Specifically, Harvey argues that there is an exception to the "irreparable harm" requirement when an injunction is sought to enjoin actions that are clearly contrary to expressed law, citing Thibodeaux v. Conoco Phillips Co., 2006-1282 (La. App. 3 Cir. 3/7/07), 952 So. 2d 912 writ denied, 2007- 0725 (La. 6/29/07), 959 So. 2d 518 and Bossier v. Lovell, 410 So. 2d 821 (La. App. 3 Cir. 3/23/1982), writ denied 414 So. 2d 376 (La. 1982). In the instant case, Harvey argues that the Second Injunction was based on the State's violation of the First Injunction, and that its actions in doing so, found to be in contempt of court, are by definition "clearly contrary" to law.

  3. Robert G. Harvey, Sr. in His Capacity L.C. v. State

    183 So. 3d 684 (La. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 18 times
    Permitting plaintiff who sued not individually, but in his capacity as the owner of the company, to seek injunctive relief for the company

    In so concluding, we have considered, and rejected, the argument by Harvey that an exception to the usual requirement of irreparable harm applies in this case. Specifically, Harvey argues that there is an exception to the “irreparable harm” requirement when an injunction is sought to enjoin actions that are clearly contrary to expressed law, citing Thibodeaux v. Conoco Phillips Co., 2006–1282 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/7/07), 952 So.2d 912 writ denied, 2007–0725 (La.6/29/07), 959 So.2d 518 and Bossier v. Lovell, 410 So.2d 821 (La.App. 3 Cir. 02/03/1982), writ denied 414 So.2d 376 (La.1982). In the instant case, Harvey argues that the Second Injunction was based on the State's violation of the First Injunction, and that its actions in doing so, found to be in contempt of court, are by definition “clearly contrary” to law.

  4. Thibodeaux v. Phillips

    952 So. 2d 912 (La. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 4 times

    In such situations, a showing of irreparable injury is not necessary. Galle v. Coile, 556 So.2d 957 (La.App. 3 Cir.1990); Bossier v. Lovell, 410 So.2d 821 (La.App. 3 Cir.), writ denied, 414 So.2d 376 (La. 1982). In Bossier, this court affirmed the issuance of an injunction to prevent the general partner of a partnership from violating provisions of the partnership agreement.

  5. Galle v. Coile

    556 So. 2d 957 (La. Ct. App. 1990)   Cited 5 times
    In Galle v. Coile, 556 So.2d 957 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1990), this court, noting that the plaintiffs sought the injunction out of fear that the defendants would harass them pending trial, found that there was no irreparable injury. The court concluded that not only could the plaintiffs seek monetary damages, they could also have the defendant arrested.

    La.C.C.P. art. 3601 states that "[a]n injunction shall issue in cases where irreparable injury, loss, or damage may otherwise result to the applicant, or in other cases specifically provided by law, . . .". The jurisprudence has developed an exception to this rule for situations where an injunctions is sought against actions clearly contrary to expressed law. In such situations, a showing of irreparable injury is not necessary. Bossier v. Lovell, 410 So.2d 821 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1982), writ denied, 414 So.2d 376 (La. 1982); New Orleans Pub. Serv. v. City Council, 539 So.2d 891 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1989); and cases cited therein. We do not find the exception applicable since defendant's alleged activities are arguably illegal as opposed to clearly illegal and, therefore, plaintiffs were required to demonstrate irreparable injury.

  6. Miller v. Knorr

    553 So. 2d 1043 (La. Ct. App. 1989)   Cited 15 times
    Determining proof of irreparable injury unnecessary to enjoin violation of valid zoning ordinance

    However, a showing of irreparable injury is a prerequisite to injunctive relief only where the actions to be enjoined are lawful. City of New Orleans v. National Polyfab Corp., 420 So.2d 727 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1982); Bossier v. Lovell, 410 So.2d 821 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1982). The violation of a zoning ordinance is unlawful.

  7. New Orleans Pub. Serv. v. City Council

    539 So. 2d 891 (La. Ct. App. 1989)   Cited 6 times

    In delineating the exception, our courts have used very precise language: an injunction may issue against conduct which is "forbidden by law" or "reprobated by law." See Apex Oil Co., supra, at 624; Smith, supra, at 274; Bossier v. Lovell, 410 So.2d 821, 827 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1982), writ denied 414 So.2d 376 (La. 1982); Whalen v. Brinkmann, 258 So.2d 145, 147 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1972). This language suggests conduct which clearly goes against express law.

  8. Lovell v. Hallelujah, Inc.

    451 So. 2d 116 (La. Ct. App. 1984)   Cited 4 times
    In Lovell, all of the general partners were removed; in the instant case, there are no general partners to remove, the partners were added.

    On trial of that matter, the district court rendered judgment enjoining the proposed sale, which judgment was affirmed on appeal by this court. Bossier v. Lovell, 410 So.2d 821 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1982), writ denied, 414 So.2d 376 (La. 1982). This court specifically noted that the validity of the limited partners' removal vote of the general partners was not at issue in that case.

  9. City of New Orl. v. Nat'l Polyfab Corp.

    420 So. 2d 727 (La. Ct. App. 1982)   Cited 8 times

    However, a showing of irreparable injury is a prerequisite to injunctive relief only where the actions to be enjoined are lawful. Salter v. B.W.S. Corporation, Inc., 290 So.2d 821 (La. 1974). Whalen v. Brinkman, 258 So.2d 145 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1972), Bossier v. Lovell, 410 So.2d 821 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1982). Since the violations of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance by the defendant are unlawful, there is no need for the City of New Orleans to show irreparable harm.