Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Hayes v. Muller, 158 So. 2d 191.

63 citing documents.

Succession of Simms 195 So. 2d 114 La. 1966
Lofaso v. Blanchard 185 So. 2d 579 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
A , , sets forth the law applicable in the following words, towit: “And in Ingolia v. Lobrano, 244 La.
Prentice v. Amax Petroleum Corp. 187 So. 2d 752 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
In Hayes v. Muller (1963) , , the court stated: “[2,3] * * * [A] joint adventure can properly be defined as a special combination of two or more persons who jointly seek a profit through a specific adventure without any partnership or corporate designation.
Hayes v. Muller 183 So. 2d 310 La. 1966
See Hayes v. Muller (on rehearing) , .
McRoberts v. Hayes 181 So. 2d 390 La. 1965
Bolding v. Eason Oil Company 178 So. 2d 246 La. 1965
241 , (1963); , (1963); and Little v. Haik, 246 La.
Fontenot v. Fontenot 175 So. 2d 910 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
McRoberts v. Hayes 173 So. 2d 27 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
This exception was not heard until January 1964 , was then pending in the Supreme Court.
Muller v. Landry 170 So. 2d 922 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1965
Little v. Haik 163 So. 2d 558 La. 1964
Following the refusal of a rehearing, defendant applied for a writ of review asserting that the ruling of the Court of Appeal is in direct conflict with our recent decision in Hayes v. Muller (on rehearing) , .
Chenevert v. Lemoine 161 So. 2d 85 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1964
Pique v. Ingolia 162 So. 2d 146 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1964
on rehearing, is dispositive of this issue.
Ingolia v. Pique 162 So. 2d 148 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
on rehearing; Pique v. Ingolia, supra.