Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles v. Rault, 389 So. 2d 1373.

13 citing documents.

Breen v. Holmes 236 So. 3d 632 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
In support of her argument, Terrell cites Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles v. Rault , , 1375 (La.
John Anthony Guidry v. Beauregard Electric Cooperative,inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
4 Cir. 11/24/99), and Deutsch, Kerrigan & (La.App.
Guidry v. Beauregard Electric Cooperative, Inc. 164 So. 3d 266 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
App. 4 Cir. 11/24/99), , and Deutsch, Kerrigan & (La.App.
Taylor v. Tulane Medical Center 751 So. 2d 949 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
Deutsch, Kerrigan & (La.App.
Ventress v. Union Pacific RR Co. 666 So. 2d 1210 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
Deutsch, Kerrigan & (La.App.
Hunt Plywood, Inc. v. Estate of Davis 645 So. 2d 248 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
Relying upon a statement in Deutsch, Kerrigan & (La.
Hunt Plywood, Inc. v. Estate of Davis 645 So. 2d 248 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Art. 2133 requires that an answer be filed “no later than fifteen days after the return *254 date or the lodging of the record whichever is later.” Relying upon a statement in Deutsch, Kerrigan & (La.App.
Lester v. Lester 516 So. 2d 219 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
Interest should be awarded from the date of each statement, see Deutsch, Kerrigan & (La.App.
Thomas v. Department of Welfare 454 So. 2d 839 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
2133, of the lodging of the transcript portion of the record and is therefore timely; Deutsch, Kerrigan & (La.App.
Thomas v. Department of Welfare 446 So. 2d 510 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
Art. 2133, of the lodging of the transcript portion of the record and is therefore timely; Deutsch, Kerrigan & (La.App.
Reynolds, Nelson, Theriot & Stahl v. Chatelain 428 So. 2d 829 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1983
In the case of Deutsch, (La.App.
Heard v. Blakney 415 So. 2d 487 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
13:5117; Deutsch, Kerrigan & (La.App.
Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles v. Rault 396 So. 2d 883 La. 1981