334 So. 2d 197 - State v. Baudier’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The basis for defendant’s motion is that the Parish’s cause of action for an injunction prescribed prior to its being filed on March 16, 1986. According to LSA-R.S. 9:5625, a claim to enforce a zoning violation must be brought within two years from the first act constituting the commission of the violation. However, if the violation in question is a violation of use regulations, the action must be brought within two years from the date the parish, municipality or their properly authorized instrumentality or agency first had been notified in writing of such a violation. Although there is some dispute as to the dates involved in the instant case, the Court finds that the defendant began her business no later than sometime in the later half of 1983 and that the Parish did not become aware of the business until sometime in March, 1985. Therefore, the question is whether defendant’s violation should be classified a “use” violation or not. If it is not a “use” violation, then the Parish’s action clearly prescribed, since there was approximately two and one/half years between the first act constituting the violation and the Parish’s suit. If, however, defendant’s violation is a “use” violation, then the action has just as clearly not prescribed because the suit was filed within one year of the Parish being put on notice of the violation. Defendant has argued that the permitted uses in a R-l Rural zone consist of “any use which does not create a nuisance by way of objectionable noise”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. St. Tammany Parish v. Masters