Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Fried v. Bradley, 52 So. 2d 247.

36 citing documents.

Maxine Thomas v. Housing Louisiana Now, L.L.C., Tracy F. Robinson, Master Builders & Contractors, L.L.C., Richard J. Mithun, … La. 2025
Our jurisprudence has long recognized that an issue which is not raised or argued in the district court “is not properly before this court and we are unable to consider it.” 52 So.
La. 2020
“The jurisprudence is well settled that pleas and issues not made in the court of first instance cannot be raised on appeal.” (1950) (collecting cases) .
Thomas v. Bridges 144 So. 3d 1001 La. 2014
1072 , 110 So.2d *1010 104, 105-06 (1959); , (1950); Weingart v. Delgado, 204 La.
State v. $144,320.00 Tina Beers 105 So. 3d 694 La. 2012
“The general rule is that appellate courts will not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal.” Segura v. Frank, 93-1271, 93-1401 (La.1/14/94), ( , (1950)).
State of Louisiana v. Brent Ervin Prudhomme La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
9/7/11), : “[t]he general rule is that appellate courts will not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal.” [Segura v. Frank,] 93-1271, p. 15 (La.1/14/94); ( (1950) (cases cited therein)).
State v. Prudhomme 101 So. 3d 565 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
or error cannot be availed of after verdict unless it was objected to at the time of occurrence.” As noted by the supreme court in State v. Dorsey, 10-216, pp. 47-48 (La.9/7/11), , 636: “[t]he general rule is that appellate courts will not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal.” [Segura v. Frank,] 93-1271, p. 15 (La.1/14/94); ( , (1950) (cases cited therein)).
State v. Dorsey 74 So. 3d 603 La. 2011
In Segura v. Frank, this Court noted, “[t]he general rule is that appellate courts will not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal.” 93-1271, p. 15 (La.1/14/94); ( , (1950) (cases cited therein)).
Whitten v. Moorman 973 So. 2d 159 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
Id., 228 So.2d at 209-210 ; , (1951).
Walston v. Lakeview Regional Medical Center 768 So. 2d 238 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
See, , (1950), *243 and cases cited therein.
Lanham v. Tri-State Sand & Gravel, Inc. 764 So. 2d 268 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
Brown v. Brown 692 So. 2d 458 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
See, , (1950), and cases cited therein.
Stewart v. Winn Dixie Louisiana, Inc. 686 So. 2d 907 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1996
Segura v. Frank, 93-1271, 93-1401 (La.1/14/94) ; , (1950); Sanders v. Ashland Oil, Inc., 94-1469 (La.
Hutchinson v. Patel 637 So. 2d 415 La. 1994
(1950) (collecting cases).
Segura v. Frank 630 So. 2d 714 La. 1994
See, , (1950), and cases cited therein.
Succession of Riggio 405 So. 2d 513 La. 1981
Furthermore, it seems that proponents of the will should have presented the testimony of the notary and two witnesses on the will, if not because failure to call them raises a presumption that their testimony would be unfavorable ( Fried et al. v. Bradley, et al., , (1950), (on rehearing 1951); Succession of Yeates, 213 La.
Marshall v. Wells 381 So. 2d 551 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1980
(1950) and Whitney National Bank of New Orleans v. Schwob, 203 La.
Reed v. Thomas 355 So. 2d 277 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1978
3rd Cir. 1969); , (1950).
Southeastern Public Service Co. v. Barras 246 So. 2d 298 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
Moore v. Shell Oil Company 228 So. 2d 205 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1970
Bruce v. Simonson Investments, Inc. 207 So. 2d 360 La. 1968
Twilbeck v. Twilbeck 192 So. 2d 907 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
50 , ; , ; Pearlstine v. Mattes, 223 La.
Succession of Simms 195 So. 2d 114 La. 1966
Succession of Delesdernier 184 So. 2d 37 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1966
908 (1907), , (1951); Soule v. West, 185 La.
Bourgeois v. Ducos 182 So. 2d 539 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
598 , , such nullity was relative rather than absolute.
Giuffria Realty Company v. Kathman-Landry, Inc. 173 So. 2d 329 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1965
(1950), a petitory action was instituted based on the nullity of a deed executed by executors of a succession.
Succession of Seals 150 So. 2d 13 La. 1963
this Court considered most apt its philosophy as announced in the case of Lafitte, Dufilho & Co. v. Godchaux, supra, and observed that it was safe- to conclude that but for the discovery of oil and gas, which greatly enhanced the value of the property involved, the nullity of a deed of sale would
Shirey v. Campbell 151 So. 2d 557 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1963
Monk v. Monk 144 So. 2d 384 La. 1962
50 , ; , ; John v. John, 224 La.
Union Producing Co. v. Schneider 131 So. 2d 133 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
Articles 3S44 and 2221; Fried v. Bradley, 1950, , .
Prestridge v. Humble Oil & Refining Company 131 So. 2d 810 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
the executors of an estate, who had qualified as such in the State of Mississippi, but who had not qualified as executors in Louisiana nor followed any of the other formalities required by the laws of this State in the sale of succession property, sold a tract of land in Louisiana.
Sun Oil Company v. Roger 118 So. 2d 446 La. 1960
For another instance of approval of the same language, , at page 81, , at page 255.
Jackson v. Golson 111 So. 2d 876 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
Dufrene v. Tracy 94 So. 2d 297 La. 1957
Pitre v. Peltier 79 So. 2d 746 La. 1955
at page 80, , at page 254, we observed: “Thus it may be seen that the lawmakers in their wisdom have deemed it to the interest of society to interpose a statute of repose by fixing a time limit (10 years), after which the parties at interest, by their silence and inaction, are conclusively presumed to h
John v. John 69 So. 2d 737 La. 1953
Martin v. Carroll 59 So. 2d 158 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1952
ns there was no foundation upon which the ten year prescription could be erected, and *163 therefore the prescriptive plea of ten years must be overruled.” We note in brief of learned counsel for appellants, in support of the defense of prescription of five and ten years under Articles 3542 and 2221 of the Revised Civil Code, , , which was decided by the Supreme Court in May of 1950, after judgment in the case before us was rendered in February of the same year.