Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Succession of Franz, 139 So. 2d 216.

46 citing documents.

Shea Harrelson and James Agee Versus Utc Laboratories, LLC La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2023
13:4533, which provides: “The costs of the clerk, sheriff, witness’ fees, costs of taking depositions and copies of acts used on the trial, and all other costs allocated by court, shall be taxed as costs.” The trial court rejected plaintiffs’ deposition costs and document costs, however, finding them taxable as costs only when “used on the trial,” -83, -19 (La.
Inga Barre-Williams, Wife of/and Raymond Julius Williams, Individually and on Behalf of Their Minor Child, Raymond Joseph Williams … La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2021
Earl Alphonso v. v. Exxon Mobil Exxon Mobil Risk Management, Inc. La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2020
Arnaud v. Scottsdale Insurance Co. 181 So. 3d 759 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
1 Cir. 11/10/94) , , , -19 (1962).
In re Certain St. Bernard Parish Government Computer Disks v. St. Bernard Parish Government ex rel. Ponstein 130 So. 3d 56 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
See Watters, 08-0977, p. 50, 15 So.3d at 1162 ( , (1962)); Lacy v. ABC Ins.
Hendrick v. Patterson 109 So. 3d 475 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
(1962); Morris & Dickson Co., Inc. v. Jones Brothers Co., Inc., 29,379 (La.App.2d Cir.4/11/97), , writ denied, 1997-1259 (La.9/5/97), ; Watters v. Department of Social Services, 2008-0977 (La.App.
Hendrix v. Maison Orleans I, L.L.C. 101 So. 3d 1013 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
In Re Sanborn 50 So. 3d 1279 La. 2010
It is the “well-settled jurisprudence of this State that the only costs taxable against a litigant are those provided for by positive law.” , (1962); State ex rel, Dept. Of Highways v. Salemi, 249 La.
Watters v. Department of Social Services 15 So. 3d 1128 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Tipton v. Campbell 996 So. 2d 27 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
In support, it cites , (1962), in which the court construed the requirement that the documents be used at trial to mean the introduction and acceptance into evidence at trial.
In Re Succession of Pitman 968 So. 2d 871 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
Barrilleaux, supra, , (1962).
Gauthier v. Wilson 927 So. 2d 383 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
As set forth by the Louisiana Supreme Court in , -219 (1962), the language of La.
ST. MARTINVILLE v. Louisiana Tax Com'n 917 So. 2d 38 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
Co., for the proposition that failure to object to prejudicial statements constitutes a waiver of the right to complain of them on appeal and , (1962) for the proposition that appellate courts are without right to pass upon the admissibility of evidence which has been offered and received at trial without objection.
Russell v. Snelling Personnel 835 So. 2d 672 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
Barrilleaux, 683 So.2d at 361 ( , (1962)).
Saden v. Kirby 826 So. 2d 558 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
13:4533, and the , (1962).
Delaney v. Whitney Nat. Bank 703 So. 2d 709 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
Bourgeois v. Heritage Manor of Houma 691 So. 2d 703 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
*710 875, (1962); Moran v. Harris, 93-2227, p. 3 (La.App.
Barrilleaux v. Franklin Foundation Hosp. 683 So. 2d 348 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
Moran v. Harris 645 So. 2d 1248 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Trans-Global Alloy v. First Nat. Bank 583 So. 2d 443 La. 1991
Co., (failure to object to prejudicial *449 statements constitutes waiver of right to complain of them on appeal); , (1962) (appellate court is without right to pass upon the admissibility of evidence which has been offered and received at trial without objection).
Bush v. Winn Dixie of Louisiana, Inc. 573 So. 2d 508 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
Wallace v. Upjohn Co. 535 So. 2d 1110 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
Hill v. Lamulle 506 So. 2d 690 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1987
13:4533 in , as follows: As we now view the provision of the statute, we discern that the clause `costs of taking depositions and copies of acts used on the trial', being a separate and distinct clause, set off by commas from the other provisions of the Act, was essentially intended to render taxable only
Dykes v. Peabody Shoreline Geophysical 482 So. 2d 662 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
In , (1962), the court held that discovery depositions actually introduced and filed into evidence are "used on the trial" within the meaning of the statute, but it did not decide whether use at trial short of filing into evidence also qualified.
Perry v. Odeco, Inc. 473 So. 2d 312 La. 1985
Succession of Franz, [ ] Currie [Curry] v. Vallot, ”
LeBlanc v. LeBlanc 472 So. 2d 312 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
Liquid Carbonic Corp. v. BASF Wyandotte Corp. 468 So. 2d 1225 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
Clark v. Pernie Bailey Drilling 445 So. 2d 183 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
13:4533; , (1962); Parish v. Bill Watson Ford, Inc., (La.App.
Succession of Kilpatrick v. First National Bank of Shreveport 422 So. 2d 483 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
4th Cir.1961) reversed on other grounds (1962).
Succession of LaCroix 400 So. 2d 338 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
4 Cir. 1961, -144 (rev’d in other part, , ).
Rains v. Diamond M. Co. 396 So. 2d 306 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
and (related case) 236 La.
Barbato, Super & Robinson, Inc. v. Koerner 394 So. 2d 820 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
(1962); Parish v. Bill Watson Ford, Inc., La.App., , writs denied .
Parish v. Bill Watson Ford, Inc. 354 So. 2d 727 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
Allen v. Toups 348 So. 2d 1270 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
Boatner v. McCrory Corp. 341 So. 2d 1174 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
In , (1962) the Supreme Court stated: "R.S.
Devillier v. Traders & General Insurance Company 321 So. 2d 55 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
In , (S.Ct.1962) our Supreme Court held that where a deposition is introduced into evidence at trial it is "used on the trial" within the intent of the above provision.
Succession of Moody 306 So. 2d 869 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
Kohlmeyer and Company v. Sobert 273 So. 2d 884 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
Curry v. Vallot 271 So. 2d 711 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
Dyson v. Travelers Insurance Co. 256 So. 2d 468 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1972
Gore v. American Motorists Ins. Co. 244 So. 2d 894 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
Kommer v. Assenheimer, La.App., .
State Ex Rel. Department of Highways v. Salemi 193 So. 2d 252 La. 1966
and authorities there cited; Mediamolle v. Texas & N. O. R. Co. (La.App.), , cert.
State, Department of Highways v. Moresi 189 So. 2d 292 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1966
and (related case) 236 La.
Doug Ashy Lumber, Inc. v. Ducharme 185 So. 2d 848 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
Mediamolle v. Texas & New Orleans Railroad 176 So. 2d 691 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1965
Kommer ex rel. Kommer v. Assenheimer 174 So. 2d 197 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
In , , the Supreme Court points out that the only costs taxable against a litigant are those provided for by positive law.