DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Love v. Dedon, 118 So. 2d 122.

16 citing documents.

  • Mathews v. Mathews 1 So. 3d 738 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
    The jurisprudence allowed that “the motive or real consideration can always be established by parol evidence,” and that “the cause of a contract is always open to proof explanatory of its nature, as between the parties.” , (1960).
  • Sonnier v. Conner 998 So. 2d 344 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
  • LeBlanc v. Romero 783 So. 2d 419 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    1019 , (1943); , (1960); (La.App.
  • McCarroll v. McCarroll 701 So. 2d 1280 La. 1997
    1019 , (1943); , (1960); (La.App.
  • GNC Ltd. Partnership v. Dooley 657 So. 2d 255 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
  • Hogan v. McKeithen 527 So. 2d 982 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
    1019 , (1943); , (1960); (La.App.
  • SHREVERPORT GR. EMPIRE BROAD., INC. v. Chicoine 528 So. 2d 633 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
    1019 , (1943); , (1960).
  • Hullaby v. Mosely 505 So. 2d 874 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
  • Webb v. Scott 346 So. 2d 765 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    Such a case was Love v. Dedon, [ , ] * * * which was cited in support of the court's opinion.
  • Blalock v. Blalock 259 So. 2d 367 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1972
    2d Cir. 1968); , (1960).
  • Bergeron v. Parish Lumber Home Improvements, Inc. 255 So. 2d 163 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
    The parol evidence offered by plaintiff was properly admissible and considered by the trial court in order to ascertain the true intent of the parties, , (1960).
  • Hinton v. May 241 So. 2d 583 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
    See, also: , (1960) and the numerous authorities therein cited.” In Love v. Dedon, Chief Justice Fournet quoted approvingly from Dickson v. Ford, 38 La.Ann.
  • Bash v. Sims 210 So. 2d 180 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1968
    Citing this legal principle and a long line of cases supporting it, , (1960) quoted approvingly from the case of Dickson v. Ford, 38 La.
  • Smith v. Richardson 200 So. 2d 897 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1967
    See, also: , (1960) and the numerous authorities therein cited.
  • Wimbush v. Jones 136 So. 2d 704 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
    736 (1886); , (1960); Collins et al. v. Brunet, 239 La.
  • Distinguished Girard v. Donlon 127 So. 2d 761 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
    cited by appellant, is distinguishable as concerning a situation where parol evidence was admitted to "give effect to the contract", and such evidence was thus not "against or beyond what is contained in the acts," (Emphasis supplied by Supreme Court).