DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Calk v. Highland Const. & Mfg., 376 So. 2d 495.

31 citing documents.

  • F.Q. Hood, APLC, and F.Q. Hood v. Marchallice Ashton, Samuel Ashton and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2023
    Calk v. Highland, [ (La.
  • Dodson & Hooks, APLC v. The Louisiana Community Development Capital Fund, Inc. La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
    1979); Calk v. Highland Const. & Mfg., La.
  • Priola Construction Corporation v. Cameron Parish Police Jury La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
    37:218 was discussed in detail by the supreme court in Calk v. Highland Construction & Manufacturing, -99 (La.1979) (second alteration in original): The state of the law in this area, relating to the protection afforded a lawyer for the collection of his fees, can be better appreciated by a brief review of the historical developments surrounding the applicable statutes.
  • Duhe v. DCR Indus. Servs., Inc. 267 So. 3d 723 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
    1978) (on rehearing); Calk v. Highland Const. & Mfg., , 499 (La.
  • Moe v. Allstate Insurance Co. 191 So. 3d 1097 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    In Calk v. Highland Const. & Mfg., the Supreme Court held: “We determine here *1100 that ‘fee’ includes the agreed upon contingency fee, taxable court costs advanced by the attorney, and the attorney’s necessary and reasonable expenses in pursuance of the litigation, such as those for investigation and travel.
  • St. Pierre v. Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, Inc. 102 So. 3d 1003 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2012
    and Mfg., and Scott v. Kemper Ins.
  • Irons v. US Bank, Inc. 966 So. 2d 646 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2007
  • Cox v. Boggs 899 So. 2d 770 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
    Calk v. Highland Const. & Mfg., (La.
  • Lawanda Theodile v. Rpm Pizza, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    See Calk v. Highland Const. & Mfg.
  • Theodile v. RPM Pizza, Inc. 865 So. 2d 980 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    See Calk v. Highland Const. & Mfg.
  • Hanks v. COLUMBIA WOMEN'S AND CHILD. HOSP. 865 So. 2d 745 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
  • Francis v. Hotard 798 So. 2d 982 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    37:218A; Saucier, 373 So.2d at 117 ; Scott, 377 So.2d at 70 (between client and attorney, recordation "irrelevant"); Calk v. Highland Construction & Manufacturing, -500 (La.1979) (superseded by statute, on other grounds; section B was added to La.
  • Turner v. Dr. X 787 So. 2d 622 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    1 Cir.1968) and Calk v. Highland Construction & Manufacturing
  • Ross v. Salomon 756 So. 2d 629 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    Calk v. Highland Construction & Manufacturing
  • Gegenheimer v. Cajun Painting, Inc. 689 So. 2d 457 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., Calk v. Highland Const. & Mfg.
  • Dupuis v. Faulk 609 So. 2d 1190 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
    In extending the privilege to cover such advances, the legislature intended to overrule, at least in part, Calk v. Highland Construction & Manufacturing
  • Louisiana State Bar Ass'n v. Sanders 568 So. 2d 1025 La. 1990
    See Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., Calk v. Highland Construction & Manufacturing
  • Hawthorne v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. 562 So. 2d 473 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
    Calk v. *475 Highland Construction and Manufacturing
  • Solar v. Griffin 554 So. 2d 1324 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
    Calk v. Highland Construction & Manufacturing
  • Wills v. Solida Const. Co. 543 So. 2d 1365 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
    In Calk v. Highland Construction & Manufacturing, the Louisiana Supreme Court found that the word "fee" in LSA-R.
  • Neely v. Hollywood Marine, Inc. 530 So. 2d 1116 La. 1988
  • Dusenbery v. Andras 525 So. 2d 682 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
    Calk v. Highland Const. & Mfg.
  • Durr v. Audubon Insurance Co. 520 So. 2d 972 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
    3d Cir.1986); Calk v. Highland Construction & Manufacturing
  • Krampe v. Krampe 510 So. 2d 1289 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
    Likewise, in Calk v. Highland Construction & Manufacturing, the court held that it followed the Saucier interpretation.
  • Moody v. Arabie 498 So. 2d 1081 La. 1986
    Leenerts Farms, and Calk v. Highland Construction & Manufacturing, Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., (on rehearing).
  • Walton v. Walton 490 So. 2d 1093 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
    Calk v. Highland Construction & Manufacturing
  • Alker v. Martinez 477 So. 2d 855 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
    Calk v. Highland [ ], supra.
  • Ruiz v. Williams 425 So. 2d 929 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    Unlike the situation in Calk [ ] where recordation of the contingency fee contract is irrelevant in a contest between an attorney and the client’s creditor, imposition of an obligation upon the client’s obligor in the suit to retain settlement funds until determination of fee entitlement, is dependent upon the attorney’s full compliance wi
  • Cheatham v. City of New Orleans 391 So. 2d 1324 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
    37:218 in Calk v. Highland Const. & Mfg., the statute is inapplicable.
  • Olivier v. Doga 384 So. 2d 330 La. 1980
    In Calk v. Highland Construction & Manufacturing, [2] Justice Calogero of this Court, in a scholarly opinion, traced the historical development of these statutes and expressed their meaning and application.
  • Scott v. Kemper Ins. Co. 377 So. 2d 66 La. 1979