DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Armwood v. Kennedy, 90 So. 2d 793.

16 citing documents.

  • Caillouet v. Zwei Bruderland, LLC 746 So. 2d 752 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
  • Nation v. Wilmore 525 So. 2d 1269 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
    The Wilmores, , (1956), and Foos v. Creaghan, 226 La.
  • Cenac v. Cenac 492 So. 2d 39 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
  • Montegut v. Davis 473 So. 2d 73 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
  • Fontenot v. Fontenot 427 So. 2d 27 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
    (1956), and contend that the market value of the property must be determined solely by the use of the property at the time of the sale to the exclusion of other appraisal methods or approaches.
  • Ozane v. Ozane 392 So. 2d 774 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
    (1956) ; * * * Speculative values are not to be considered in resolving the question of whether or not lesion exists.
  • Dunker v. Finance Funds Group, Inc. 333 So. 2d 331 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    2d 775 (1956); , (1956); Poos v. Creaghan, 226 La.
  • Valley Land Corporation v. Fielder 242 So. 2d 358 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1971
    (1956), rejects the highest and best use approach in determining whether there is lesion beyond moiety in the sale of immovable property.
  • Peterson v. Herndon 235 So. 2d 178 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
    (1956); Foos v. Creaghan, 226 La.
  • Whittington v. Whittington 229 So. 2d 193 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
    (1956); * * * Speculative values are not to be considered in resolving the question of whether or not lesion exists.
  • Fletcher v. Smith 216 So. 2d 663 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
    (1956); Foos v. Creaghan, 226 La.
  • Crow v. Monsell 200 So. 2d 700 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1967
    (1956); Foos v. Creaghan, 226 La.
  • White v. Oakley 191 So. 2d 904 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
  • Wimbush v. Jones 136 So. 2d 704 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
    A , (1956), wherein it held that an action to rescind a $5,000.00 sale of ten acres of land on the ground of lesion beyond moiety should be denied.
  • Martin v. Mays 127 So. 2d 77 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
    the trial court held plaintiff was not entitled to relief herein because of his failure to prove by clear and convincing evidence the value of the land according to the state in which it existed at the time of sale to defendant Mays.
  • Hemenway Furniture Co. v. Corbett 126 So. 2d 666 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
    126 ; vendor must establish value by strong and convincing proof, , ; Morris v. Kleinpeter, 197 La.