Bendich v. Scobel
Citations
- 107 La. 242
Syllabus
<p>Syllabus.</p> <p>On Motion to Dismiss Appeal.</p> <p>1. An appeal will not be dismissed .because of the absence from the transcript of evidence which could not, if present, influence the decision of this court.</p> <p>2. The fact that counsel representing a number of appellants describe themselves, at one place in the motion, and in signing the bond of appeal, as “attorneys for plaintiffs” is not sufficient reason for dismissing the appeal for uncertainty as to the party appealing, when it otherwise appears, in such motion-and bond, that it was the purpose to appeal for all the parties cast. , As to the bond, it would have been good, if it had been signed by none of the appellants.</p> <p>On the Mebits.</p> <p>1. Bayou LaChute has its source and runs its course in the Parish of Plaque-mines, and is not a navigable stream in any sense that places it beyond the dominion and control of the State of Louisiana.</p> <p>2. Hence, quoad a mere squatter, upon land owned by the State, and fronting on said Bayou, it is competent for the State to make a “cut-off,” connecting said Bayou with other waters; and it is equally competent for the State to recognize or tolerate such “cut-off” when made by other persons.</p> <p>3. And so, when a “cut-off” has been made and the State thereafter leases its lands upon the Bayou to persons, otherwise “squatters,” who have full knowledge of its existence, and the one lessee makes no stipulation concerning it, whilst the other takes a lease of the “cut-off” itself, for the planting' and cultivation of oysters, the one lessee has no right to close such “cut-off” to the injury of the other, even though he may find It prejudicial to the oyster beds upon the property leased by him.</p> <p>4. The damages to be allowed for an alleged trespass must be established with reasonable certainty, and will not include traveling expenses, loss of time or attorney’s fees incurred for the purposes of prosecutions instigated against the trespasser by the par
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- dismissing unjust enrichment claim where “based on the same factual allegations underlying” the plaintiff's contract and tort claims
- denying a motion to dismiss a 11 New York common law unfair competition claim because the plaintiff alleged that the 12 defendants pretended to form a partnership with the plaintiff to obtain confidential information
- dismissing an unfair competition claim because the plaintiff did “not [plead] facts demonstrating that [the relevant defendant] knew that the technology it purchased . . . and helped sell . . . was [the] [p]laintiff’s technology”
- Defendant used partnership to take information about plaintiff’s proprietary technology and cut plaintiff out of future business
- “Because (1) Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim under New York law is based on the same factual allegations underlying its contract and tort claims; and (2
- “New York's unfair competition law is a broad and flexible doctrine that depends more upon the facts set forth ... than in most causes of action.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Monroe
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.