Pyle v. City of Shreveport
Supreme Court of Louisiana
1Dissent
The written reasons which I assigned for dissenting with the majority holding on the original hearing I now reaffirm.
The additional conclusion announced by the majority on this rehearing, with which I also disagree, fails to take into consideration the jurisprudence of this court to the effect that the burden of proving the unreasonableness of the proposed annexations is upon those asserting it (in this case the plaintiffs), and that the unreasonableness must be made to appear by abundant evidence. Lawrence v. Town of Mansfield,129 La. 672, 56 So. 633; Bowman-Hicks Lumber Company et al. v.…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Lawrence v. Town of MansfieldSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1911
- New Orleans & N. W. R. v. Town of VidaliaSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1906
- Harvey Canal Land & Improvement Co. v. GelbkeSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1928
- Bowman-Hicks Lumber Co. v. Town of OakdaleSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1918