DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Louisiana State Board of Education v. Lindsay, 79 So. 2d 879.

17 citing documents.

  • Shoreline Gas, Inc. v. Grace Resources, Inc. 786 So. 2d 137 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
    At best, as the district court reasonably concluded, the July 22 , (1954).
  • Drachenberg v. Parish of Jefferson 563 So. 2d 523 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1990
    (1954), on rehearing (La.1955).
  • Major Commodity Corp. v. Cunningham 555 So. 2d 525 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
    Books, Etc. Inc. v. Krushevski, 266 So.2d at 498 , , (1954).
  • Pittman v. Pomeroy 552 So. 2d 983 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
    This applies both to agreements and options to purchase or sell real estate, , (1954); (La.App.
  • Reaux v. Iberia Parish Police Jury 454 So. 2d 227 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
  • Chauvin v. Bohn 411 So. 2d 442 La. 1982
    [4] , (1955), this court held that an oral acceptance by telephone was insufficient under the mandate of C.C.
  • Fleming v. Romero 342 So. 2d 881 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
    4th Cir. 1963); , Klotz v. Gertrude Gardner, Inc., (La.
  • Briggs v. Siggio 285 So. 2d 324 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1974
  • Lawes v. Erwin Heirs, Inc. 274 So. 2d 496 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
    Article 1805 reads: “The acceptance to form a contract must be in all things conformable to the offer; any condition or limitation contained in the acceptance of that which formed the matter of the offer, gives him, who makes the offer, the right to withdraw it.” , (1955); (La.App.
  • Books, Etc. Inc. v. Krushevski 266 So. 2d 496 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
    e accepted within the time stipulated, the contract or agreement to sell, evidenced by such promise and acceptance, may be specifically enforced by either party.” In considering an issue arising out of an option to buy, the Supreme Court of Louisiana set out the requirements of the law necessary to successfully invoke a , (1954): “[3] It is manifest, therefore, that not only must an option to buy immovable property ‘be evidenced by a written instrument’ but the unqualified acceptance thereof be
  • Alley v. New Homes Promotion, Inc. 247 So. 2d 218 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1971
    The cases cited by Alley, , (1954) and Barchus v. Johnson, 151 La.
  • Robichaux v. Pool 209 So. 2d 77 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
    In accordance therewith, it is well settled that parol evidence may not be used to establish title to immovables ( , 79 So.
  • Morere v. Dixon Real Estate Co. 188 So. 2d 623 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1966
    483 , ; , ; Kuhn v. Stan A. Plauche Real Estate Co., La.App., ; Bennett v. Treadaway, La.App., .
  • Russell v. Armington 162 So. 2d 91 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
    Defendant stresses the failure of Plaintiff to have notified him in writing of the acceptance before midnight of September 7th and cites cases, , , and Barchus v. Johnson, 151 La.
  • Gross v. Brooks 130 So. 2d 674 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
  • Clark v. Reed 122 So. 2d 344 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1960
    996 , ; , ; Stacy et al. v. Midstates Oil Corporation et al., 214 La.
  • Collins v. Brunet 114 So. 2d 69 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
    for instance, the Supreme Court said: “To give effect to the instrument of December 11, 1953, as plaintiff’s counsel would have us do, would do violence to our codal provisions which demand a promise to sell on one hand and a reciprocal consent to buy on the other between the parties, so as to co