DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite George W. Garig Transfer, Inc. v. Harris, 75 So. 2d 28.

26 citing documents.

  • Huntsman International, L.L.C. and Rubicon, L.L.C. v. Praxair, Inc. La. 2025
  • Black Water Marsh, LLC v. Roger C. Ferriss Properties, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
    “The rule is that lost profits, as an element of damages for the breach of a contract, may be recovered where they are not speculative or uncertain in their nature, and are susceptible of proof with reasonable certainty.” George W. Garig Transfer
  • White Haute, LLC v. Mayo 38 So. 3d 944 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
  • AL'S TRUCKING v. State Farm Fire & Cas. 735 So. 2d 833 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
    Defendant cite George W. Garig Transfer, , (1954), which states "lost profits, as an element of damages for the breach of a contract, may be recovered where they are not speculative or uncertain in their nature, and are susceptible of proof with reasonable certainty."
  • Barnett v. Jabusch 649 So. 2d 1158 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
    George W. Garig Transfer, , (1954).
  • Gibbs Const. Co., Inc. v. Thomas 500 So. 2d 764 La. 1987
    (1954); Southport Mill v. Friedrichs, 171 La.
  • Wasco, Inc. v. Economic Development Unit, Inc. 461 So. 2d 1055 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
  • Moss v. Guarisco 459 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
  • Lavigne v. J. Hofert Co. 431 So. 2d 74 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • Folds v. Red Arrow Towbar Sales Co. 378 So. 2d 1054 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1979
    (1954); Campbell v. Lelong Trust, La.App., , writs refused and 496 (La.App.
  • Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc. 373 So. 2d 102 La. 1979
  • Hall v. Arkansas-Louisiana Gas Co. 368 So. 2d 984 La. 1979
    (1954); Southport Mill v. Friedrichs, 171 La.
  • AL SMITH'S PLUMBING ETC. v. River Crest, Inc. 365 So. 2d 1122 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
  • Stevens v. Tynes 357 So. 2d 7 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
  • Morse v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., Inc. 344 So. 2d 1353 La. 1977
    (1954), the meaning of the clause is "that the condition is considered as accomplished, when the debtor, bound under that condition, prevents the accomplishment of it."
  • AE Landvoigt, Inc. v. LOUISIANA STATE EMP. RETIREMENT SYSTEM 337 So. 2d 881 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    George W. Garig Transfer, , ; Southern Television Electronics v. Read, La.App., .
  • Groghan v. Billingsley 313 So. 2d 255 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1975
    [11] , ; Williams v. Cormier, La.App., .
  • Louisiana Intrastate Gas Corporation v. Muller 290 So. 2d 888 La. 1974
    22 , 209 * (1968); , (1954); Lieber v. Ouachita Natural Gas & Oil Co., 153 La.
  • Briggs v. Siggio 285 So. 2d 324 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1974
    (1954) was a suit for damages for breach of a contract to sell a certificate of the Public Service Commission for a common carrier.
  • Pelican Printing Co. v. Pecot 216 So. 2d 153 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1968
    Ferguson v. Britt, 191 La.
  • Distinguished Gillan v. Jones 157 So. 2d 598 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1964
    The case of George W. Garig Transfer, , , is readily distinguishable on the ground that there was no reservation of rights, nor presentation of an alternative plea.
  • Corley v. Rowan 146 So. 2d 271 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1962
    (1954); and Mitchell v. Gulf States Finance Corporation, 226 La.
  • Commercial Credit Corp. v. Carrier 139 So. 2d 256 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
    31: “ * * * the exception of want of jurisdiction ratione personae, to be valid, must be presented in liminie and alone, and ‘an appearance to the suit, except for the purpose of objecting to the jurisdiction, or to the process or citation, subjects defendant to the jurisdiction of the court.’ ” See al
  • Hungerford v. Hungerford 121 So. 2d 226 La. 1960
    he jurisdiction ratione materiae with his exception to the jurisdiction ratione personae, without pleading the former in the alternative and without reserving his rights under the latter; and he having prayed “that these exceptions be sustained, and that there be judgment in favor of defendant * * * rejecting the demands of the plaintiff at her costs.” In George W. Garig Transfer, , , this court, confronted with an almost identical situation, held that action on the part of a defendant such as o
  • Dupre v. Consolidated Underwriters 99 So. 2d 522 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
    1008 , ; George W. Garig Transfer, Inc., v. Harris, , , noted 15 La.L.Rev.
  • Mitchell v. Gulf States Finance Corp. 78 So. 2d 3 La. 1955
    The plaintiff-appellant’s position, that the defendant by his mode of pleading waived his exception to the jurisdiction ratione personae, is well taken; the exact point was decided in the case of George Garig Transfer Co., Inc., v. Harris, , , in which this Court distinguished State v. Younger, 206 La.