Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Coco v. MacK Motor Truck Corp., 106 So. 2d 691.

24 citing documents.

Pardue v. Ryan Chevrolet, Inc. 719 So. 2d 623 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
Ford Motor Credit v. Laing, supra ; , (1958).
Ford Motor Credit v. Laing 705 So. 2d 1283 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
(1958); Carroll v. Coleman, 27,861 (La.App.2d Cir. 1/24/96), .
Austin's of Monroe, Inc. v. Brown 474 So. 2d 1383 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
Boudreaux v. Riley Buick, Inc. 415 So. 2d 970 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
Ashley v. Volkswagen of America, Inc. 380 So. 2d 702 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
See Coco v. Mack Motor *706 Truck Corp.
General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Daniels 377 So. 2d 346 La. 1979
[2] The *348 , (1958) to find that enjoining the seizure and sale of a vehicle by the creditor is a proper remedy when that vehicle is the subject of an action in redhibition.
General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Daniels 369 So. 2d 1169 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
(1958); Bickham Motors, (1st Cir. 1966).
State v. Mart 352 So. 2d 678 La. 1977
Menville v. Stephens Chevrolet, Inc. 300 So. 2d 858 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1974
it is said that in actions in quanti minoris "like other civil matters, it is the duty of the plaintiff to prove with reasonable certainty the amount to which the price should be reduced."
Tauzin v. Sam Broussard Plymouth, Inc. 283 So. 2d 266 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1973
Wolfe v. Henderson Ford, Inc. 277 So. 2d 215 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1973
(1958), and Morehouse Ice Co. v. Tooke and Reynolds, 154 So.
RO Roy & Company, Inc. v. a & W TRAILER SALES 277 So. 2d 204 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1973
Prince v. Paretti Pontiac Co. 262 So. 2d 826 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
Papa v. Louisiana Metal Awning Company, La.App., ; Loeb v. Nielson, La.App., .” (emphasis ours) And the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit (1961) , 117 stated: “In order to justify a decree of quanti minoris, whether pr
Ingersoll v. Star Chrysler, Inc. 234 So. 2d 85 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1970
Article 2543; , (1958); Ehrlich v. Roby Motors Co., 166 La.
Johnson v. HW Parson Motors, Inc. 231 So. 2d 73 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
Charter Co. v. Mercante 186 So. 2d 430 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
The cited article has been applied in various situations including cases involving a partial failure of consideration ( , ), and instances wherein the buyer is unable to tender a return of the object sold (Pursell v. Kelly, 244 La.
Bickham Motors, Inc. v. Crain 185 So. 2d 271 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
Hebert v. Claude Y. Woolfolk Corporation 176 So. 2d 814 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1965
Art. 2543 to decree a diminution of the price instead of a rescission of the sale, , , Dupuy v. Blotner Bros, etc., La.App.
Leson Chevrolet Company v. Barbier 173 So. 2d 50 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1965
Papa v. Louisiana Metal Awning Company, La.App., ; Loeb v. Nielson, La.App., .
Hanna Investments, Inc. v. Stovall 171 So. 2d 678 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1965
Harris v. Automatic Enterprises of Louisiana, Inc. 145 So. 2d 335 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
Papa v. Louisiana Metal Awning Company 131 So. 2d 114 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1961
Art. 2543; Coco v. Mack Motor Truck Corp., 1958, , .
Harding v. Ed Taussig Edsel Motors, Inc. 130 So. 2d 517 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
Mack Motor Truck Corp. v. Coco 106 So. 2d 518 La. 1958
That matter is this day disposed of by our opinion in Docket No. 44,027, , .