· 6/22/1903

Dehon v. Lafourche Basin Levee Board

Citations

110 La. 767
34 So. 770
1903 La. LEXIS 706

Syllabus

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — LOCAL ACTS — TITLE OF ACTS — GOVERNOR — ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS — SUPPLEMENTARY ACT — INJUNCTION. 1. The laws attacked do not fall within the requirements of the Constitution regarding publication prior to adopting “local or special” laws. 2. The title sufficiently indicates the object of the act attacked on the ground of asserted defect of title. 3. The body of the act does not contain two-separate and distinct objects differing one from, the other. 4. The Governor of the state may, ex officio, be invested with certain functions in matter of administration of levee boards, without violating the article of the Constitution requiring that one branch of the government shall not interfere with another. 5. An act containing provision supplementary of a prior act need not reproduce the prior act in extenso. The supplemental act was not written as an act amending the prior-law. 6. The work has the sanction of the government of the United States, and the testimony 'does not show that the statutes are illegal. 7. Plaintiffs’ suit is premature in this: If in course of the work it become evident that the defendants are unable to carry out conditions imposed, it will then be time enough to stop the work. (Syllabus by the Court.)

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

noting that “[c]ourts typically find undue delay . . . in cases where discovery has closed and dispositive motions deadlines have passed”
explaining that the Court may consider a plaintiff’s “repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments” when considering a motion to amend (quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962))
denying an undue delay argument when the amended complaint was filed “prior to discovery” and “within the timeframe set by the Court’s . . . Order”
in applying Kentucky law, explaining that a plaintiff “plead[s] a plausible strict products liability claim” by establishing that the defective product resulted in “physical harm to the ultimate user or consumer or his property”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Breaux, Nicholls

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced 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.