City of Shreveport v. Tidwell
Citations
- 112 La. 172
- 36 So. 312
- 1904 La. LEXIS 376
Syllabus
<p>BRIDGES — CONSTRUCTION—TITLE 03? ACT — CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.</p> <p>1. The language of the statute did not embrace the Bossier end of the bridge as an interest which Bossier must surrender, and which would forever after be under the direction and control of Shreveport.</p> <p>2. The title of the law must express its object. Neither the title nor the statute should express two objects.</p> <p>3. Two objects would not have been expressed if the title had embraced the object, i. e., that the city of Shreveport was to have the full management and control of the Bossier end of the bridge, and to administer it for the purpose stated.</p> <p>4. This the title and the statute failed to express, and therefore the injunction is dissolved.</p> <p>(Syllabus by the Court.)</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- rejecting claim of de facto employee where consultant did not exercise any independent decisionmaking authority on behalf of client
- “[T]he case’s precedential value is likely limited to its unique context— a high-profile criminal investigation where the lawyers are attempting to counteract ‘the broad power of the government.’”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Breaux, Land, Takes
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.