Skip to main content
· 11/15/1900

St. Anna's Asylum v. City of New Orleans

Citations

  • 104 La. 392

Syllabus

<p>Syllabus.</p> <p>1. The City of New Orleans has the legal right, when in possession for public uses of a portion of a batture directly upon the river, in front of which the river was forming a shoaling bed, to fill up this shoaling space up to deep water with earth, to protect the same outwardly by a bulkhead, to advance the landing line to the bulkhead and use the space in the rear of the bulkhead as a quay or place of deposit for unloaded cargoes. This advancing of the landing line does not carry with it necessarily a right on the part of the owner of the batture just in the rear of this new work, to take absolute possession of the same as full owner.</p> <p>2. Where the city holding for public use batture property upon the Missis- . sippi river which has in front a shoaling bank, determines for the convenience of commerce to advance the landing line to reach deep water, it has the legal right to enter into an agreement with private individuals to do the work necessary for this purpose, and to receive as an equivalent for such work a right of reasonable temporary use of such extension, and the batture just behind. The naked owner of the batture cannot disregard the agreement and dispossess the parties holding possession under it, on tlie ground that such occupancy of the ground is a private occupancy.</p> <p>3. If the agreement should be illegally or improperly exclusive of public rights of others, the courts would be open for their redress.</p>

How courts have described this case

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

  • “Here, nearly nine months passed between Plaintiff’s request for an accommodation and his subsequent termination. Such a prolonged period of time is not “unusually suggestive” of a retaliatory motive.”
  • “Here, nearly nine months passed between Plaintiff’s request for an accommodation and [the adverse employment action]. Such a prolonged period of time is not unusually suggestive of a retaliatory motive.” (internal quotations omitted)
  • “Plaintiff’s Section 955(e) claim against [d]efendant fails because his discrimination claim under PHRA § 955(a) and his retaliation claim under PHRA § 955(d) also fail. Simply stated, [p]laintiff has alleged no discrimination or retaliation for [d]efendant to aid and abet.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: 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.