DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Majesty v. Comet-Mercury-Ford Co. of Lorain, Mich., 296 So. 2d 271.

27 citing documents.

  • Payne v. Pedus Building Service Inc. 671 So. 2d 13 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    *15 Majesty v. Comet-Mercury-Ford Co. of Lorain, Mich.
  • Lowe v. Rivers 448 So. 2d 848 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
  • Melancon v. Lorde 435 So. 2d 517 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    Majesty v. Comet-Mercury-Ford Co. of Lorain, Mich., see also Melancon v. Tassin Amphibious Equipment Corp., supra, note 1; Schlumbrecht v. Executive Officers, Etc., (La.App.
  • Ray v. Alexandria Mall 434 So. 2d 1083 La. 1983
    In a case involving similar facts, Majesty v. Comet-Mercury-Ford Co. of Lorain, Mich., (Dixon and Calogero, JJ., dissenting), this court held that an amending petition to correct a "misnomer" does not relate back to the date of filing of the original petition.
  • Lessard v. Argrave 432 So. 2d 321 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    The Louisiana Supreme Court in Majesty v. Comet-Mercury-Ford Company of Lorain, Michigan, (La.
  • Melancon v. Tassin Amphibious Equipment Corp. 427 So. 2d 932 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
    Majesty v. Comet-Mercury-Ford Company of Lorain, Michigan
  • Ray v. Alexandria Mall ex rel. St. Paul Property & Liability Insurance 424 So. 2d 1245 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    Majesty v. Comet-Mercury-Ford Co. of Lorain, Mich., (La.App.
  • Bennett v. General Motors Corp. 420 So. 2d 531 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
    Majesty v. Comet-Mercury-Ford Co. of Lorain, Mich., La.C.C.
  • Wicker v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. 418 So. 2d 1378 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1982
    Majesty v. Comet-Mercury-Ford Co. of Lorain, Mich.
  • Scales v. State 411 So. 2d 658 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
    ( Favors vs. Southern Industries, Inc. [La.App.], (1st Cir. 1977); Majesty v. Comet-Mercury-Ford Company of Lorain, Michigan, Commercial Union Insurance Co. v. Bringol [La.App.], (4th Cir. 1972).
  • Original Caboose, Inc. v. Ullo 399 So. 2d 1188 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
  • Clark v. McDonald's System, Inc. 383 So. 2d 61 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1980
    In the decision of Majesty v. Comet-Mercury-Ford Company of Lorain, Michigan, plaintiff timely filed suit against a non-existent corporation designated as Comet-Mercury-Ford Company of Lorain, Michigan, when the proper defendant should have been the Ford Motor Company.
  • Hill v. Provozano 377 So. 2d 378 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    2 Majesty v. Comet-Mercury-Ford Co. of Lorain, Mich., (La.App.
  • Schlumbrecht v. EXECUTIVE OFFICERS ETC. 371 So. 2d 389 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1979
    Majesty v. Comet-Mercury-Ford Co. of Lorain, Mich.
  • Peyton v. Torg Films Co. 370 So. 2d 613 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1979
    fendant even in the amended petition and the exception of prescription, and that the correct name now appears to be Torq Film Services, Inc. The issue on this appeal is whether or not the filing of the suit against Torg Film Company interrupted prescription under the circumstances as against Torq Film Services, Inc. Defendant relied primarily on Majesty v. Comet-Mercury-Ford Co. of Lorain, Mich., in which the same procedural problem was presented to the court with the result that the court held
  • Fleur De Leis Apts v. DAVIDSON SASH, ETC. 364 So. 2d 234 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
    Majesty v. Comet-Mercury-Ford Co. of Lorain, Mich., Compare Small v. Caterpillar Mfg.
  • Hinchen v. Fontenot Construction Co. 359 So. 2d 661 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
  • Roby v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. 357 So. 2d 99 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
    The trial judge maintained the exception with the observation that he felt bound by Majesty v. Comet-Mercury-Ford Co. of Lorain, Mich., in spite of his strong disagreement with that holding.
  • Morgan v. Epps 356 So. 2d 1027 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    Majesty v. Comet-Mercury-Ford Company of Lorain, Michigan
  • CHIN SEE FUN v. Louisville & NR Co. 344 So. 2d 8 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1977
    was, we believe, properly applied by the trial court whose ultimate conclusions—based upon that proper application—are supported by the record.
  • Favors v. Southern Industries, Inc. 344 So. 2d 693 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    Majesty v. Comet-Mercury-Ford Company of Lorain, Michigan
  • McClendon v. Security Ins. Co. of Hartford 340 So. 2d 426 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1976
    In Majesty v. Comet-Mercury-Ford Co. of Lorain, Mich., it was held that the timely filing of a petition interrupted prescription only as to defendants named in the original petition, absent solidary liability between unnamed defendant and an original defendant.
  • Rollins International, Inc. v. Melder 323 So. 2d 226 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
    Majesty v. Comet-Mercury-Ford Company of Lorain, Michigan, Martin v. Mud Supply Co., Inc., 239 La.
  • Small v. Caterpillar Mfg. Corp. 319 So. 2d 843 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
    1000 , (1948); Majesty v. Comet-Mercury-Ford Company of Lorain, Michigan
  • Cook v. Deshautreaux & Klein Pediatric Clinic 315 So. 2d 405 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1975
    See, however, the language in Majesty v. Comet-Mercury-Ford Co. of Lorain, Mich., La., (1974) to the effect that an amending petition to correct a misnomer does not relate back to the filing of the original petition.
  • Anderson v. Sciambra 310 So. 2d 128 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1975
  • Trahan v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. 303 So. 2d 606 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
    616 , (1960); Majesty v. Comet-Mercury-Ford Company of Lorain, Michigan