DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Emmons v. Agricultural Insurance Company, 158 So. 2d 594.

110 citing documents.

  • Roberts v. Tenneco, Inc. 363 So. 2d 1275 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
    intiff may elect to sue any one of them, in order to provide a substantive right to contribution between joint tort-feasors the legislature amended Civil Code Article 2103 in 1960 to allow a tort-feasor to enforce contribution against a co-tort-feasor by the use of the third party demand even if the latter was not sued by the plaintiff; and, , , recognized that the 1960 amendment incorporated the procedure of Articles 1111 through 1116 of the Code of Civil Procedure into 2103 and held the defend
  • Brickman v. Board of Directors of West Jefferson General Hospital 363 So. 2d 86 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
  • Small v. Levy 355 So. 2d 643 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
    While the Lelong court recognized that the official Law Institute Comments may be used in interpreting and construing the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, , (1963) and State v. Gremillion, La.App., (1964), it did not hold that an official comment may be considered as positive legislation repealing a special statute that has been a part of the statutory law of Louisiana for 100 years.
  • Armant v. Housing Authority of New Orleans 351 So. 2d 1262 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
  • Petite v. Richardson 347 So. 2d 23 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
  • Breaux v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. 345 So. 2d 204 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
    Whether a defendant can appeal against a , (1963).
  • State v. Guillory 339 So. 2d 970 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
  • Brock v. Tidewater Construction Company 318 So. 2d 100 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
    3rd Cir. 1972); , (1963); Acadian Production Corporation of Louisiana v. Savannah Corporation, 226 La.
  • Bennett v. Division of Administration 307 So. 2d 118 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
    Co., , (1963), we held: `Appeals are favored and aided by the Courts.
  • Salvia v. Salvia 303 So. 2d 267 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
    Mares v. Louisiana Wild Life and Fisheries Com’n., La.App., ; Succession of Videau, La.App., Mid-State Homes, Inc., v. Davis, La.App., ; Portier v. Marquette Casualty Company, 245 La.
  • Ewing v. Sharp 294 So. 2d 902 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
    (1963), the court held: “Appeal is the exercise of the right of a party to have a judgment of a trial court revised, modified, set aside, or reversed by an appellate court.
  • Woodsum v. New Orleans Public Library 289 So. 2d 878 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
    Co., 1963, , ; but see Williams v. City of Baton Rouge, 1968, 252 La.
  • Juan v. Harris 279 So. 2d 187 La. 1973
    Co., , and Williams v. City of Baton Rouge, 252 La.
  • Andrus v. Police Jury of Parish of Lafayette 266 So. 2d 535 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
  • Fasullo v. AMERICAN DRUGGISTS'INSURANCE CO. 262 So. 2d 810 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1972
  • Smith v. Board of Com'rs of Port of New Orleans 262 So. 2d 383 La. 1972
    Co., , (1963), we held: “Appeals are favored and aided by the courts.
  • Big "A" Sand & Gravel Co. v. Bay Sand & Gravel Co. 262 So. 2d 66 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
    (1963), the Supreme Court ruled that: “The law is too well settled to require the citation of authority that appeals are favored in the law, must be maintained wherever possible and will not be dismissed for technicalities.
  • King v. King 253 So. 2d 660 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
    Fruehauf, above, Emmons v. Agricultural *663 Insurance Company, , .
  • Smith v. Girley 242 So. 2d 32 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
    Lomenick v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co., La.App., , dealt at length in dicta with the issue before us. Lomenick suggests that the Supreme Court decision in Emmons v. Agricultural Insurance Company, et al., , , dictates that in matters of this instance the appeal must be upheld.
  • King v. Moore 242 So. 2d 549 La. 1970
  • Hathorn v. McKay 236 So. 2d 74 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
    and Yidrine v. Simoneaux, La.App.3d Cir., .
  • Nolan Guidry Welding Works, Inc. v. J. P. Van Way Engineer-Contractor, Inc. 234 So. 2d 525 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
  • State v. Nails 234 So. 2d 184 La. 1970
    409 , ; State v. Perry, 239 La.
  • Mares v. Louisiana Wild Life & Fisheries Commission 228 So. 2d 694 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1969
    Company, , ; Succession of Tullier, 216 La.
  • Distinguished Cunningham v. Hardware Mutual Casualty Company 228 So. 2d 700 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
    a case similar to but distinguishable from the instant matter, the Supreme Court considered the right of a defendant to appeal against a co-defendant where no third party demand was filed in the trial court by the appealing defendant.
  • H & H Boat Rental, Inc. v. Vidos 221 So. 2d 829 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
  • Roy v. Edmonson 221 So. 2d 583 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1969
    3 Cir. 1962; , ; Murry v. Bankers Fire & Marine Insurance Company, , La.App.
  • State v. Jenkins 221 So. 2d 50 La. 1969
    409 , ; State v. Brown, 245 La.
  • State v. Lampkin 218 So. 2d 289 La. 1969
    409 , (1963); State v. Brown, 245 La.
  • Mullin v. Skains 215 So. 2d 643 La. 1968
    y elect to sue any one of them, 2 in order to provide a substantive right to contribution between joint tort-feasors the legislature amended Civil Code Article 2103 in 1960 3 to allow a tort-feasor to *1015 enforce contribution against a co-tortfeasor by the use of the third party demand even if the latter was not sued by the plaintiff; and, , , recognized that the 1960 amendment incorporated the procedure of Articles 1111 through 1116 of the Code of Civil' Procedure into 2103 and held the defen
  • Muhin v. Skains 215 So. 2d 643 La. 1968
    ff may elect to sue any one of them, 2 in order to provide a substantive right to contribution between joint tort-feasors the legislature amended Civil Code Article 2103 in 1960 3 to allow a tort-feasor to enforce contribution against a co-tort-feasor by the use of the third party demand even if the latter was not sued by the plaintiff; and, , , recognized that the 1960 amendment incorporated the procedure of Articles 1111 through 1116 of the Code of Civil Procedure into 2103 and held the defend
  • Williams v. City of Baton Rouge 214 So. 2d 138 La. 1968
    Those decisions ( , (1963) ; Murry v. Bankers Fire & Marine Insurance Company, ) are predicated upon Civil Code, Article 2103, giving solidary obligors the right
  • McCauley v. Manda Brothers Provisions Company 211 So. 2d 637 La. 1968
    Article 2103; , ; Vidrine v. Simoneaux, La.App., ; 24 La.L.Rev.
  • Fruehauf Trailer Company v. Baillio 210 So. 2d 312 La. 1968
  • Newton v. Allstate Insurance Co. 209 So. 2d 744 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
    making him a third party defendant in the suit, as provided in Article 1111 through 1116 of the Code of Civil Procedure, whether or not the third party defendant was sued by the plaintiff initially, and whether the defendant seeking to enforce contribution if he is cast admits or denies liability on the obligation sued on by the plaintiff.” , (1963), the Supreme Court had presented an interpretation of Article 2103 pertaining to the right of appeal of one defendant against his co-defendant where
  • Stoltz v. McConnell 202 So. 2d 451 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1967
    625 , ; , ; Wischer v. Madison Realty Company, 242 La.
  • Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Administrator, Division of Employment Security of Department of Labor 203 So. 2d 924 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
    (1963); City of New Orleans v. Leeco, Inc., 226 La.
  • Kirkeby-Natus Corporation v. Campbell 199 So. 2d 904 La. 1967
    and the cases cited therein.
  • State v. Montera 199 So. 2d 534 La. 1967
  • Williams v. City of Baton Rouge 200 So. 2d 420 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
    Fontenot v. Grain Dealers Mutual Ins.
  • Murry v. Bankers Fire & Marine Insurance Company 198 So. 2d 532 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1967
    Fontenot v. Grain Dealers Mutual Ins.
  • Bryant v. Young Memorial Vocational-Technical School 197 So. 2d 158 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
    In Emmons v. Agricultural Insurance Company (1963) , , the Supreme Court stated: “[1-3] Appeal is the exercise of the right of a party to have a judgment of a trial court revised, modified, set aside, or reversed by an appellate court.
  • Fremin v. Collins 194 So. 2d 470 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1967
  • Texas Pipe Line Company v. Stein 190 So. 2d 244 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1966
    Co., , (1963); Spiller v. Spiller, 170 La.
  • Bahan v. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. 191 So. 2d 668 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1966
  • Lomenick v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co. 189 So. 2d 731 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1966
  • Hibbert v. Mudd 187 So. 2d 503 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1966
    Co., , ; Dore v. Tugwell, 228 La.
  • Gulf States Utilities Co. v. Dixie Electric Membership Corp. 179 So. 2d 637 La. 1965
    Consequently, in view of that holding, of the well settled principle that appeals are favored in law, of our jurisprudential rule that “unless the ground urged for the dismissal is free from doubt an appeal will be sustained” ( , ), and of the recognized doctrine that “an appeal should not be dismissed except for the substantial causes provided by law” (Wischer v. Madison Realty Company, Inc., 242 La.
  • Gorum v. Pritchard 173 So. 2d 308 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1965
    The cases upon which we rely particularly in arriving at this conclusion, in addition to the Vidrine case, are: , ; True v. McDonald, La.App.
  • Campo v. LaNasa 173 So. 2d 365 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1965
    Defendants contend that, when Plaintiff answered their appeal, Latter & Blum (as their third-party Defendant) was thereby made a party on appeal, , .