State ex rel. City of New Orleans v. King
Citations
- 104 La. 735
Syllabus
<p>Syllabus.</p> <p>1. The City of New Orleans is acting within the scope of its administrative and police power in authorizing the laying of a third rail in connection with the re-arrangement of the tracks upon, and the paving of, one of its streets, though the question of the right of the particular company actually laying-such rail to make use of the same is involved in litigation. Whether it is advisable to lay the rail under such circumstances, in order to provide against the possible future breaking np of the pavement for that purpose, is a matter of legislative discretion.</p> <p>2. Street railway companies do not own the soil of the streets of New Orleans upon which their tracks are laid, and their ownership of the ties, rails, etc., constituting their tracks, is qualified by the fact that the City of New Orleans has the right to authorize other roads to use such tracks.</p> <p>3. In this case an injunction issued to restrain the laying of a third rail, the laying of which was authorized by the City of New Orleans. Held: That the injunction should have been dissolved, as on bond, upon the application of the city, and, on bond, upon the application of the company acting under such authority, and mandamus to that effect is made peremptory.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- finding no diligence where “the essential facts related to Plaintiff’s [proposed] claim have been known to Plaintiff since the outset of [the] litigation”
- exercising “broad discretion under Rule 16(b) to consider the proposed” pleading given the lack of prejudice to defendant, even where plaintiff did not display diligence
- “[Parties] opposing a motion to amend ... bear[ ] the burden of establishing that an amendment would be futile.”
- “[Parties] opposing a motion to amend ... bear[ ] the burden of establishing that an amendment would be futile.”
- “Where it appears that granting leave to amend would be futile or is unlikely to be productive, it is not an abuse of discretion to deny leave to amend.”
- “District courts ‘have broad discretion in determining whether to grant leave to amend.’”
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.