Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Gallagher v. Gallagher, 181 So. 2d 47.

31 citing documents.

Louisiana-Annunciation Condominium Association, Inc. v. Kathryn L. Kennedy La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2023
art. 2164 (which states in pertinent part, that “the appellate court shall render any judgment which is just, legal and proper upon the record on appeal” (emphasis added)); 181 So.
Joann Place v. Melba Ricard La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2022
art. 2164 (which states in pertinent part, that “the appellate court shall render any judgment which is just, legal and proper upon the record on appeal” (emphasis added)); (1965); Bullock v. Commercial Union Ins.
Joe Turnage v. City of Alexandria La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
continued) Gallagher, So.2d 47 (1965); Bullock v. Commercial U. Ins.
Adoption of N. B. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
“Article 2164 [of the Code of Civil Procedure] provides that appellate courts shall render judgment „upon the 5 Record on appeal,‟ which likewise precludes the consideration of evidence outside that record[.]” -29, (1965).
Adoption of N.B. 140 So. 3d 1263 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
“Article 2164 [of the Code of Civil Procedure] provides that appellate courts shall render judgment ‘upon the |f;Record on appeal,’ which likewise precludes the consideration of evidence outside that record[.]” -29 , (1965).
State in the Intrest of T. H. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
P. art. 2164; So.2d 47 (1965); Bullock v. Commercial U. Ins.
State ex rel. T.H. 140 So. 3d 911 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
P. art. 2164; , (1965); Bullock v. Commercial U. Ins.
Denoux v. Vessel Management Services, Inc. 983 So. 2d 84 La. 2008
P. art. 2164; , (1965); Bullock v. Commercial U. Ins.
BWS JR. v. Livingston Parish School Bd. 936 So. 2d 181 La. 2006
Jackson v. Royal Insurance Co. 704 So. 2d 424 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
art. 2164; , (1965); and Jensen v. Jensen, 93-455 (La.App.
Prescott v. Parish of Jefferson 694 So. 2d 468 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1997
GEO CONSULTANTS INTERNATIONAL v. Professional Roofing and Const., Inc. 672 So. 2d 1002 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1996
Archer v. Tudor Const. Co. 649 So. 2d 1251 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
Art. 2164; , (1965); Jensen v. Jensen, 93-455 (La.App.
Webber v. Berry 609 So. 2d 1175 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
Deris v. Lee 581 So. 2d 1072 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1991
Sutton v. Montegut 544 So. 2d 1181 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
Lozes v. Lozes 542 So. 2d 603 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Article 2164; , (1965); (La.App.
Franklin v. City of Baton Rouge 525 So. 2d 674 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
Placid Refining Co. v. Privette 523 So. 2d 865 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
Succession of Gaspard 509 So. 2d 521 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
Capital Drilling Co. v. Graves 496 So. 2d 487 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
UNITED STATES, ETC. v. Victory Land Co. 410 So. 2d 359 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
3rd Cir. 1975), writ refused September 12, 1975; , (1965).
Succession of Brice 390 So. 2d 905 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1980
2082 and 2164; , (1965); (La.App.
Pierce v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, ETC. 392 So. 2d 460 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
3rd Cir. 1975); , (1965); Boucher v. Division of Employment Security, Department of Labor of State of Louisiana, 235 La.
Powell v. Powell 344 So. 2d 453 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
(1965), a remand was allowed for additional evidence concerning the husband’s ownership of an automobile and his employment at the time of the trial below.
Fulmer v. Fulmer 301 So. 2d 622 La. 1974
Cf., (dicta), annulled on other grounds, , (1965).
City of Kenner v. Progressive Brokerage Co. 285 So. 2d 566 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
Nereaux v. Rivet 228 So. 2d 172 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
the Court held: There is no article in the Code of Civil Procedure which specifically gives an appellate court the right to remand a case for the reception of new evidence.
Gallagher v. Gallagher 218 So. 2d 366 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
1036 , , , , and La.App., 190 So.
Gallagher v. Gallagher 190 So. 2d 916 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1966
This action for a separation "a mensa et thoro" was heretofore before us twice, originally ( [1964]), and on rehearing ( [1965]), and before the Supreme Court ( , [1965]), pursuant to a writ of certiorari directed to this court ( 247 La.
LaFleur v. National Health & Life Insurance Co. 185 So. 2d 838 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1966
(which did, however, consider such "new evidence" as indicating a reason to remand the case to the trial court in the interests of justice).