Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Pringle-Associated Mortgage Corporation v. Eanes, 226 So. 2d 502.

29 citing documents.

First Thrift and Loan, LLC v. Griffin 954 So. 2d 269 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
Jean Simpson Personnel v. G & G Concrete 803 So. 2d 992 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
Bayou Pierre Farms v. Bat Farms Partners 693 So. 2d 1158 La. 1997
See Pringle-Associated Mortgage Corp. v. Eanes, et al., , (on rehearing).
Martin v. LOUISIANA FARM BUREAU CAS. INS. 638 So. 2d 1067 La. 1994
Martin v. Louisiana Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. 628 So. 2d 1213 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
To the settled stream of cases adopting the holdings in D.R. Carroll & Co. and Forcum-James which flowed without significant interruption for nearly a century, , (1969), further interpreting the language of article 2161(3), reasoned that the article also "presupposes the existence of a solidary obligation."
Impressive Builders, Inc. v. Ready Mix, Inc. 535 So. 2d 1344 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
Aetna Ins. Co. v. Naquin 488 So. 2d 950 La. 1986
Moncrief v. Panepinto 489 So. 2d 938 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
However, , (1969) the Supreme Court said, at page 508: "...
Aetna Ins. Co. v. Naquin 478 So. 2d 1352 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
Wheelahan v. Eller 446 So. 2d 442 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
(1969) which interprets Art. 2161 to require that an obligation be in solido for subrogation to take place.
Sentry Indem. Co. v. Rester 430 So. 2d 1159 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
rehearing denied, *1161 1969; (La.App.
Tharpe & Brooks, Inc. v. Arnott Corp. 406 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
(1st Cir. 1968), amended in part , .
Melyn Industries, Inc. v. Sofec, Inc. 392 So. 2d 733 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
*738 Appellant further contends that appellee, as a subcontractor, is not entitled to any privileges for the wages it paid to its employees for the sand blasting and painting
Ragsdale v. Hoover 353 So. 2d 1132 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1978
SUBCONTRACTORS RIGHT TO CLAIM LIEN FOR WORK OF EMPLOYEES Plaintiffs urge that a subcontractor who furnishes labor through his employees, but who does none of the labor himself, cannot recover under a lien for labor, , (1969).
Courtney v. Harris 355 So. 2d 1039 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
Also, the court cited La.Civ.Code art. 2161(3) , (1969).
Phillips v. Nereaux 357 So. 2d 813 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
O'CONNOR v. Terry 346 So. 2d 739 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
Distinguished Turnkey Constructors, Inc. v. Dewey, Cheatum & Howe, Inc. 341 So. 2d 1339 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
In Caneco, , (1969) as support for the argument that only the laborer himself could file a lien for labor performed at the jobsite.
Distinguished City Bank & Trust Co. v. Caneco Const., Inc. 341 So. 2d 1331 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
Hunt v. La Chere Maison, Inc. 316 So. 2d 850 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
the Supreme Court held that a subcontractor who pays his laborers wages is not subrogated to the laborer's claim against the owner, neither does such a laborer have a lien against the owner's property.
Cox v. WM Heroman & Co., Inc. 298 So. 2d 848 La. 1974
the contractor is obligated to pay the materialman if the subcontractor does not.
Lagrue v. Murrhee 291 So. 2d 844 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1974
Commercial Insurance Agency, Inc. v. Wilson 293 So. 2d 246 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1974
He also asserts that, , 226 So.
REFRACTORY CONST., INC. v. Cities Service Oil Co. 278 So. 2d 510 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1973
(1969); and Lumber Products, Inc. v. Crochet, 244 La.
Harris v. Huval Baking Company 265 So. 2d 783 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1972
State Ex Rel. LeBlanc v. Henderson 259 So. 2d 557 La. 1972
*566 We, sitting as the Supreme Court of Louisiana, attack with harsh and condemning language our state appellate courts below us for daring to deviate from, or even to question, our jurisprudence ( , , and Johnson v. St.
1-10, Inc. v. Justice 260 So. 2d 89 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1972
(1969) wherein subrogation was disallowed subcontractors who paid wages to laborers.
Long Leaf Lumber, Inc. v. Svolos 258 So. 2d 121 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1972
Lafayette Woodworks v. Boudreaux 255 So. 2d 176 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
267 , 268, 270 ; , 509 (1968), and affirmed by the Supreme Court, , (1969).