Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Cox v. WM Heroman & Co., Inc., 298 So. 2d 848.

85 citing documents.

National Bank of Bossier City v. Nations 465 So. 2d 929 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
Jacks v. Allstate Ins. Co. 463 So. 2d 833 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
Mulkey v. Stoney-Point Missionary Baptist Church 462 So. 2d 257 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
Independent Fire Insurance Co. v. Kline 454 So. 2d 418 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
Heroman & Co., the Supreme Court stated: “A creditor ...
Audubon Insurance Co. v. Farr 443 So. 2d 733 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
Heroman and Co. Inc., (La.App.
Gunter v. Plauche 439 So. 2d 437 La. 1983
Heroman and Company, (La.
Gremillion v. Rapides Parish Police Jury 430 So. 2d 1362 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
Heroman & Co., Inc., (La.
Gulf Shipping Co. v. McQuilling 430 So. 2d 1322 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1983
Moity v. Guillory 430 So. 2d 1243 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
Heroman & Co., Inc., Primeaux v. Bennett Homes, Inc., (La.App.
Carter's Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Franklin 428 So. 2d 808 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
Heroman & Co., Inc., Primeaux v. Bennett Homes, Inc., (La.
Sutherland v. Time Saver Stores, Inc. 428 So. 2d 972 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
Heroman & Co., Inc., (La.
Succession of Hearn 412 So. 2d 692 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
527 , (1972); Cox v. W. M. Heroman & Co., Inc., (La.
Southern Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. v. Sonnier 406 So. 2d 178 La. 1981
Cox v. W. M. Heroman & Co., Inc., (La.
Bond v. Commercial Union Assur. Co. 407 So. 2d 401 La. 1981
Cox v. W. M. Heroman & Co., Inc., Cooper v. Jennings Refining Co., 118 La.
DELTA SCHOOL OF BUSINESS, ETC. v. Shropshire 399 So. 2d 1212 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
Art. 854; Cox v. W. M. Heroman & Co., Inc.
Miller v. Miller 398 So. 2d 1162 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1981
Hibernia Nat. Bank of New Orleans v. Bolleter 390 So. 2d 842 La. 1980
Cox v. W. M. Heroman & Co.
Roy v. Commercial Union Assur. Co. 385 So. 2d 1273 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
Cox v. W. M. Heroman & Co., Inc.
West v. Allen 382 So. 2d 924 La. 1980
Cox v. W. M. Heroman Co., Inc., (3d Cir. 1977).
Guin v. Guin 378 So. 2d 1022 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1979
Higginbotham v. Curry 373 So. 2d 217 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
App. 3rd Cir. 1977), writ refused February *219 17,1978; Cox v. W. M. Heroman & Co., we do not reach that issue, for we conclude that in the interest of justice, this matter should be remanded to the trial court for reconsideration of the defendant’s prescriptive plea in light of LSA-C.C.
Lott v. Haley 370 So. 2d 521 La. 1979
Cox v. W. M. Heroman & Co., Inc.
Hodges v. LaSalle Parish Police Jury 368 So. 2d 1117 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
Cox v. W. M. Heroman, Inc., (La.App.
Porter v. Smith 368 So. 2d 1148 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
Boisdore v. International City Bank & Trust Co. 361 So. 2d 925 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
Cox v. W. M. Heroman & Co., Inc., As Boisdore did receive a portion of his property back, the question is whether he proved the value of the property which was converted but not returned and to which he is entitled under Cox , even though such relief is not specifically prayed.
Tarver v. U-Haul Co., Inc. 362 So. 2d 1157 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1978
See Cox v. W. M. Heroman & Co., Inc., International Paper Co. v. Arkansas & Louisiana M. R. Co., (La.App.
Blair v. Diaz 342 So. 2d 1237 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1977
[6] Cox v. W. M. Heroman & Co., Inc., (La.
Smith v. Scott 345 So. 2d 981 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
Budget Plan of Baton Rouge, Cox v. W. M. Heroman and Company, Inc., Cambrice v. Fern Supply Company, Inc.
Scurlock Oil Co. v. Getty Oil Co. 344 So. 2d 1134 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
art. 2040; Cf. Cox v. W. M. Heroman & Co., Inc.
Hobbs v. Fireman's Fund American Insurance Companies 339 So. 2d 28 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
Cox v. W. M. Heroman & Co., Inc., LSA-C.C.P.
Ouachita National Bank in Monroe v. Williamson 338 So. 2d 172 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
Art. 1005; Cox v. Heroman & Co., Inc., ).
Meador v. Toyota of Jefferson, Inc. 332 So. 2d 433 La. 1976
Cox v. W. M. Heroman & Co.
Lacoste v. C & C Contractors 328 So. 2d 802 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
They cite Cox v. William M. Heroman & Co., Inc., which stated that: “So long as the facts constituting the claim or defense are alleged or proved, the party may be granted any relief to which he is entitled under the fact pleadings and evidence; the ‘theory of the case’ is abolished as a pleading requirement or restriction.
McElroy Metal Mill, Inc. v. Hughes 322 So. 2d 822 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1975
In Cox v. Heroman & Co., the Supreme Court recognized, for the purposes of the substantive requirements for compensation, that debts might be equally due and demandable, *826 ".
Webster v. Rushing 316 So. 2d 111 La. 1975
Cox v. W. M. Heroman & Co., Inc.