Skip to main content
· 11/15/1900

Guillory v. Avoyelles Railway Co.

Citations

  • 104 La. 11

Syllabus

<p>Syllabus.</p> <p>1. By the terms of the Statute (Act 106 of 1892) an election held to take the sense of property tax-payers, on a proposition to grant a tax in aid of a railway enterprise, may be contested by tax-payers in interest on grounds of “fraud, illegality and irregularity.”</p> <p>2. But the suit must be brought within three months after the promulgation, of the result of the election.</p> <p>3. The words “illegality and irregularity” are broad in their scope and embrace all matters preceding the election and leading up to it, as well as matters affecting the election itself.</p> <p>4. Thus, a suit contesting a special tax election, and seeking to avoid the tax levy predicated thereon, on the ground that the petition of property tax-payers addressed to the Police Jury, asking that body to order the special election, contained less than one-third of all the property taxpayers of the Parish, must be brought within three months from the promulgation of the result of the election.</p> <p>5. Only' those persons who are named in the record as parties plaintiff or defendant, or who made themselves parties thereto by intervention, are within the meaning of the term “parties to a suit.”</p> <p>6. The timely institution of a contesting suit by certain of the tax-payers which suit is compromised and discontinued, cannot have the effect of suspending the perscription or peremption of the statute in favor of other tax-payers who did not sue in time but bethought themselves to sue after-wards.</p> <p>7. Substantial compliance on part of the grantee with the terms and conditions of the grant suffices.</p>

How courts have described this case

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

  • finding that plaintiffs successfully stated a claim challenging a defendant’s official policy
  • finding that the plaintiffs adequately alleged deliberate indifference where the university “discouraged them from reporting their assaults,” “misled and lied to [them] about their options for reporting and accommodations,” and “obstructed [their] access to medical and mental health treatment”
  • Plaintiff’s factual allegations “must rise to the level of plausibility, not certainty.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Blanchard

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.