Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Elliott v. Dupuy, 135 So. 2d 54.

72 citing documents.

Texas Gas Transmission Corporation v. Gagnard 223 So. 2d 233 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1969
Moses v. American Security Bank of Ville Platte 222 So. 2d 899 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1969
Bielkiewicz v. Rudisill, cited above.
American Creosote Co. v. Springer 232 So. 2d 532 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1969
Gulf Enterprises, Inc. v. Maryland Casualty Co. 222 So. 2d 655 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
as follows: “It is well settled that an exception of no cause of action addresses itself to the sufficiency in law of the petition and is triable on the face of the papers; that for the purpose of determining the issues raised by this exception, the well pleaded facts in the petition and any annexed d
Fremaux v. Buie 212 So. 2d 148 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1968
Willis v. State ex rel. Louisiana Department of Highways 212 So. 2d 555 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
Reilly-Benton Co. v. Gurtler, Hebert & Co. 212 So. 2d 514 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1968
783 ; , ; Simmons v. Hanson, 228 La.
McManus v. Community Credit Co. 212 So. 2d 520 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
E & F Constr. & Rentals, Inc. v. Donlin 212 So. 2d 238 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
for the proposition that the thirty-day extension automatically goes into effect once curative work becomes necessary.
Catalanotto v. Associates Discount Corp. 209 So. 2d 38 La. 1968
Samson v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co. 205 So. 2d 496 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
Bielkiewicz v. Rudisill 201 So. 2d 136 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1967
Freeman v. Department of Highways 197 So. 2d 188 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
Loeb v. Badalamenti 192 So. 2d 246 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1967
Spiers v. Davidson, 233 La.
Kinard v. City of Jennings 184 So. 2d 570 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1966
(1961); Steagall v. Houston Fire & Casualty Insurance Co., (3rd Cir. 1962).
Succession of King 184 So. 2d 583 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1966
art. 927; , ; Clark v. Reed, La.App., .
Di Fatta v. Williams 176 So. 2d 185 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
(1961); Harwood Oil & Mining Company v. Black, 240 La.
Ducote v. City of New Orleans 176 So. 2d 198 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1965
Spiers v. Davidson, 233 La.
Shuff v. Zurich-American Insurance Company 173 So. 2d 392 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
Breaux v. Pan American Petroleum Corporation 163 So. 2d 406 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1964
Harwood Oil & Mining Company v. Black, 240 La.
Washburn v. Gamble 163 So. 2d 456 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
(1961) where it is said: “ * * * When the obligor has conducted himself in a manner so inconsistent with his obligation as to preclude the likelihood of his entertaining a desire to perform, the obligor is automatically placed in default by his own act.
Ostrowski v. George 154 So. 2d 229 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
which quoted with approval from an article by Mr. Leon Sarpy, 1 Loyola L.Rev., 127: “When the obligor has conducted himself in a manner so inconsistent with his obligation as to preclude the likelihood of his entertaining a desire to perform, the obligor is automatically placed in default by his own a