Webre v. Wilson’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
5
cited by 5 later decisions
1
states following
May 2012
most recently cited
5 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Villaume v. Villaume · 594 So. 2d 908 - Preston Oil Co. v. Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp. · 655 So. 2d 617 - Clark v. City of Shreveport · 611 So. 2d 645 - Hawthorn, Waymouth & Carroll v. Johnson · 446 So. 2d 889 - BIG TRAIN CONST. v. Parish of St. Tammany
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Application for Declaratory Judgment be denied. . . . IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Motion for Injunctive Relief be denied. . . . IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that if and when [the developers] should submit [their] application(s) for final approval of that development which is the subject of this litigation, that the TANGIPAHOA PARISH COUNCIL-PRESIDENT GOVERNMENT shall hold a duly and legally noticed public hearing before the Tangipahoa Parish Council, rather than the Tangipahoa Parish Planning Commission, at which hearing the public shall be given an opportunity to participate by allowing public comments on said application and issuance of final approval on the permit for the Boardwalk Apartment development. No permits shall be issued in connection with the application until this public hearing is duly held and thereafter voted upon by the Tangipahoa Parish Council. The decision of the Tangipahoa Parish Council as to this application does not affect any right and/or action that any person or party may have as a result thereof. Excepting for the substitution of the TANGIPAHOA PARISH COUNCIL-PRESIDENT GOVERNMENT for the Tangipahoa Parish Planning Commission all of the rules, notice and procedures currently in place shall apply to this particular final approval process. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Writ of Mandamus be and is hereby granted. As such, the TANGIPAHOA ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“La. R.S. 33:1(715: The police jury of each parish shall provide a good and sufficient court-house, with rooms for jurors, and a good and sufficient jail, at such place as they may deem most convenient for the parish at large, provided that when the seat of justice is established by law, they shall not have power to remove it. ■ La. R.S. 88:14.82, in pertinent part: The compensation, fees, and costs allowed sheriffs, the parish of Orleans excepted, for all services in criminal matters, shall be the following: (1) For keeping and feeding of prisoners in jail not less than three dollars and fifty cents per diem for each prisoner. Any surplus funds remaining at the end of the fiscal year shall be returned to the parish governing authority. [[Image here]] La. R.S. 15:566, in pertinent part: A. The Department of Corrections shall pay the sum of eighteen dollars and twenty-five cents per day to the sheriff of each parish, or to the governing authority of those parishes in which said authority operates the parish jail, for feeding and maintaining each prisoner who has been convicted of a crime and sentenced to imprisonment at a state penitentiary, who is held in the parish jail without bail, pending an appeal. Each sheriff shall file a monthly report with the Department of Corrections and the local governing authority and shall be paid for such charges on a monthly basis by the Department of Corrections. However, in the parish of Orleans, said payment shall be-to the • criminal sheri”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy which is used sparingly by the courts to compel something that is clearly provided by law, and only where it is the sole available remedy or where the delay occasioned by the use of any other remedy would cause an injustice. It is clear that the mandamus lies only to compel performance of purely ministerial duties. Our jurisprudence is clear that such writ may not issue to compel performance of an act which contains any element of discretion, however slight.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.