DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite McEachern v. Plauche Lumber & Construction Co., 57 So. 2d 405.

29 citing documents.

  • Guillory v. Hebert 31 So. 3d 1097 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    Consequently, the Louisiana Supreme Court has held that in such a case, the allowable diminution is ‘the amount necessary to convert the unsound structure into a sound one,’ (McEachern v. Plauche Lumber & Construction Co., Inc., , ) or, ‘the cost of repairs necessary to make the thing whole’ (Wilfamco, Inc. v. Interstate Electric Co., 221 La.
  • Connell v. Davis 940 So. 2d 195 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
    McEachern v. Plauche Lumber & Construction Co., Inc., , (1952) ) or, as otherwise expressed, `the cost of repairs necessary to make the thing whole.'
  • Amend v. McCabe 664 So. 2d 1183 La. 1995
    Civ.Code 2503; McEachern v. Plauche Lumber & Construction Co., , (1952); Primeaux v. Bennett Homes, Inc., (La.App.
  • Truelove v. Easley 521 So. 2d 1229 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
    760 , , citing McEachern v. Plauche Lumber & Construction Co., Inc., , and Wilfamco, Inc. v. Interstate Electric Co., 221 La.
  • Smith v. Ly 498 So. 2d 128 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
    McEachern v. Plauche Lumber & Construction Co., , "
  • Verbick v. RGC Investments, Inc. 477 So. 2d 858 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
    As a consequence this court has declared that in such a case the allowable dimunition is "the amount necessary to convert the unsound structure into a sound one" (McEachern v. Plauche Lumber & Construction Co., Inc., , ) or, as otherwise expressed, "the cost of repairs necessary to make the thing whole" (Wilfamco, Inc. v. Interstate Electric Co., 221 La.
  • McKneely v. Don Coleman Const. Co., Inc. 441 So. 2d 497 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
    DeSoto, supra; McEachern v. Plauche Lumber & Construction Co., , (1952).
  • Landry v. Baton Rouge Lumber Co. 434 So. 2d 1144 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    McEachern v. Plauche Lumber & Construction Co.
  • D'ANGELO v. Poche 434 So. 2d 120 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1983
    760 , and McEachern v. Plauche Lumber & Construction Co., , (La.
  • Bustamante v. Manale 397 So. 2d 842 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
    760 , , citing McEachern v. Plauche Lumber & Construction Co., Inc., , and Wilfamco, Inc. v. Interstate Electric Co., 221 La.
  • DeSoto v. Ellis 393 So. 2d 847 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1981
    See McEachern v. Plauche Lumber & Construction Co., , (1952); Breaux v. Laird, 230 La.
  • Verlander v. Hoffer 351 So. 2d 229 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
    As a consequence, this Court has declared that in such a case the allowable diminution is `the amount necessary to convert the unsound structure into a sound one' ( McEachern v. Plauche Lumber & Construction Co., Inc., , ) or, as otherwise expressed, `the cost of repairs necessary to make the thing whole' ( Wilfamco, Inc. v. Interstate Electric Company, 221 La.
  • Overruled Peltier v. Seabird Industries, Inc. 309 So. 2d 343 La. 1975
    (1952) stated that the vendor and the manufacturer were not liable in solido under a claim for redhibition, that holding no longer has validity.
  • Media Production Consultants, Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. 262 So. 2d 377 La. 1972
    This court recognized its applicability in dicta in McEachern v. Plauche Lumber & Construction Co., Inc., , .
  • Hoggatt v. Halcomb 250 So. 2d 471 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1971
    The later case of McEachern v. Plauche Lumber & Construction Co., , [1952], cited by appellee as reaching a contrary result to the cases just cited is not inconsistent in our understanding.
  • Gabriel v. Jeansonne 162 So. 2d 798 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1964
    402 ; McEachern v. Plauche Lumber & Construction Co., , ; Bozeman v. McDonald, La.App., ; Mattes v. Heintz, La.App., ; .
  • Brown v. Dauzat 157 So. 2d 570 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1963
    142 , ; McEachern v. Plauche Lumber & Construction Co., , ; Johnson v. Hunter, La.App.
  • Fitzmorris v. Kelly 152 So. 2d 36 La. 1963
    It was because of the foregoing holding of the Court of Appeal, which appears to be contrary to the law of this State placing on the vendor the obligation of warranting the thing sold against hidden defects or its redhibitory vices (see Articles 2475, 2476 of the Civil Code and McEachern v. Plauche Lumber & Construction Co., Inc., , ) that we granted this writ of certiorari on plaintiffs’ application.
  • Stack v. Irwin 144 So. 2d 648 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
    1065 , ; McEachern v. Plauche Lumber & Construction Co., , .
  • Pursell v. Kelly 139 So. 2d 12 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
    733 , ; McEachern v. Plauche Lumber & Construction Co., Inc., , ; DeArmas v. Gray, 10 La.
  • Delta Equipment & Construction Co. v. Cook 142 So. 2d 427 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
    As a consequence this court has declared that in such a case the allowable diminution is `the amount necessary to convert the unsound structure into a sound one' (McEachern v. Plauche Lumber & Construction Co., Inc., , ) or, as otherwise expressed, `the cost of repairs necessary to make the thing whole' (Wilfamco, Inc. v. Interstate Electric Co., 221 La.
  • Hermeling v. Whitmore 140 So. 2d 257 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
    But on an exception of no cause or right of action filed by Schmieder, the district court, following the ruling in McEachern v. Plauche Lumber & Construction Company, , , dismissed this third party petition against Schmieder.
  • Lemonier v. Coco 130 So. 2d 414 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
    As a consequence this court has declared that in such a case the allowable diminution is ‘the amount necessary to convert the unsound structure into a sound one’ (McEachern v. Plauche Lumber & Construction Co., Inc., , ) or, as otherwise expressed, ‘the cost of repairs necessary to make the thing whole’ (Wilfamco, Inc. v. Interstate Electric Co., 221 La.
  • Russell v. Bartlett 139 So. 2d 770 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1961
    art. 2503 appears in that portion of the Code dealing with the seller's warranty of eviction, the argument that its terms are applicable solely to the warranty of eviction is utterly without force in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of McEachern v. Plauche Lumber & Construction Co., Inc., , , holding that the subrogation of warranty clause extends as well to the warranty against redhibitory vices.
  • Lemonier v. Coco 112 So. 2d 436 La. 1959
    As a consequence this court has declared that in such a case the allowable diminution is “the amount necessary to convert the unsound structure into a sound one” (McEachern v. Plauche Lumber & Construction Co., Inc., , ) or, as otherwise expressed, “the cost of repairs necessary to make the thing whole” (Wilfamco, Inc. v. Interstate Electric Co., 221 La.
  • Bonacorso v. Turnley 98 So. 2d 295 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
    McEachern v. Plauche Lumber & Construction Co., , , cited by defendant, is only authority for a holding that a purchaser cannot assert simultaneously his actions of warranty against both his vendor and the latter's transferor.
  • Madere v. Sharp 89 So. 2d 214 La. 1956
    & Const. Co., , ; the suit was for a diminution of the purchase price in Pappas v. Roberts, La.App., ; Bozeman v. McDonald, La.App., ; and Bulkley v. Honold, 19 How.
  • Mattes v. Heintz 69 So. 2d 924 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
    See also McEachern v. Plauche Lumber & Construction Co., , .
  • Di Pietro v. Le Blanc 68 So. 2d 156 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
    The Court cites Bozeman v. McDonald, La.App., , and McEachern v. Plauche Lumber & Construction Co., , , and held that since the vice and defect complained of was in a house four or five years old, there was no evidence in the case to show that the leak in the roof was caused by the absence of felt lining.