DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Deshotel v. Thistlethwaite, 121 So. 2d 222.

16 citing documents.

  • Thompson v. Emmis Television Broadcasting 894 So. 2d 480 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
  • Brannan v. Wyeth Laboratories, Inc. 526 So. 2d 1101 La. 1988
    13:3602; , (1960); Pool v. Gaudin, 209 La.
  • Slocum v. Webb 375 So. 2d 125 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
    1323 , 20 L.Ed.2d 262 ; , (1960) ; Madison v. Bolton, 234 La.
  • Trahan v. Ritterman 368 So. 2d 181 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
  • Alleman v. VERMILION PUBLISHING CORPORATION 316 So. 2d 837 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
    NOTES [1] See also: , (1960); Addington v. Times Publishing Co., 138 La.
  • Rosen v. Capital City Press 314 So. 2d 511 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
    1323 , 20 L.Ed.2d 262 ; , (1960); Madison v. Bolton, 234 La.
  • Russo v. Kelly 228 So. 2d 736 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
    13:3602; , (1960); Madison v. Bolton, 234 La.
  • Sas Jaworsky v. Padfield 211 So. 2d 122 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1968
  • Cormier v. Blake 198 So. 2d 139 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1967
    (1960); Giordano v. Tullier, supra; Kennedy v. Item Co., 213 La.
  • Parsons v. Gulf & South American Steamship Co. 194 So. 2d 456 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1967
    13:3602; , (1960); Madison v. Bolton, 234 La.
  • Thompson v. St. Amant 196 So. 2d 255 La. 1967
  • Dyer v. Davis 189 So. 2d 678 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
    291 , , , , as authority for the proposition that in Louisiana the privilege of fair comment and criticism is qualified to the extent it is unavailable to a defendant where falsity of the statements are established.
  • Pack v. Wise 155 So. 2d 909 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1963
    See, e. g., , ; Hamilton v. Lumbermen's Mut.
  • Matassa v. Bel 156 So. 2d 250 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
    Madison v. Bolton, 234 La.
  • State v. Garrison 154 So. 2d 400 La. 1963
    795; , .” In this Court counsel for the defendant states: “Defense counsel objected to the rejection of Proposition of Law No. 11 for the reason that the testimony of all of the complaining witnesses shows that Mr. Garrison’s actions in this case arose directly out of his duties as District Attorney for the P
  • Miller, Smith and Champagne v. Capital City Press 142 So. 2d 462 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
    997 , ; , ; Oakes v. Alexander, La.App., .