DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Louisiana Nat. Leasing Corp. v. ADF Service, Inc., 377 So. 2d 92.

22 citing documents.

  • Gardner Realtors, LLC v. Iteld 214 So. 3d 146 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
  • Ford New Holland Credit Co. v. McManus 833 So. 2d 1130 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    Tassin v. Slidell Mini-Storage, Inc., Louisiana National Leasing Corporation v. ADF Service, Inc., Walnut Equipment Leasing Co., Inc., supra.
  • WALNUT EQUIPMENT LEASING v. Moreno 643 So. 2d 327 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
    Tassin v. Slidell Mini-Storage, Inc., Louisiana National Leasing Corporation v. ADF Service, Inc., (La.App.
  • Keaty v. Moss Motors, Inc. 638 So. 2d 684 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
    Louisiana National Leasing Corporation v. ADF Service, Inc.
  • Business Credit Leasing, Inc. v. Lobman, Carnahan & Batt 635 So. 2d 1196 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
    The leading case on application of Article 2695, is Louisiana National Leasing Corp. v. ADF Services, Inc.
  • First Continental Leasing Corp. v. Howard 618 So. 2d 642 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
    In Louisiana National Leasing Corporation v. ADF Services, Inc., the Louisiana Supreme Court considered a lease situation similar to that presented here.
  • Gulf American Industries v. Airco Indus. Gases 573 So. 2d 481 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1990
    In its fourth assignment, Airco argues that the trial court erred in failing to apply the law of Louisiana National Leasing v. ADF Services, Inc., to the facts of this case.
  • Moore v. Cameron Parish School Bd. 563 So. 2d 347 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
    Services, Inc., Klein v. Young, 163 La.
  • Bart v. Wysocki 558 So. 2d 1326 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
  • First Nat. Bank v. City of New Orleans 555 So. 2d 1345 La. 1990
  • Andrus v. Cajun Insulation Co. 524 So. 2d 1239 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
    The original majority opinion based its decision purely and simply on the Supreme Court case of Louisiana National Leasing Corp. v. ADF Service, Inc., [1] This opinion, in all humility and with full respect for the decisions of the Supreme Court, does not follow LNL-SC.
  • Hawthorne v. Kinder Corp. 513 So. 2d 509 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
  • Angelle v. Energy Builders Co., Inc. 496 So. 2d 509 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    Heller cites Louisiana National Leasing Corporation v. ADF Service, Inc., as support for its argument.
  • Haspel v. Rollins Protective Service, Inc. 490 So. 2d 530 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
    As illustrated by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Louisiana National Leasing Corp. v. ADF Service, Inc., sophistication and educational level, not commerciality, are the primary considerations.
  • Clement v. Clement 487 So. 2d 759 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
    *761 1945 and 1946 Louisiana National Leasing Corporation v. ADF Service, Inc. Leenerts Farms
  • St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. French Eighth 457 So. 2d 35 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    Service, Inc., Klein v. Young, 163 La.
  • G/O ENTERPRISES, INC. v. Mid Louisiana Gas Co. 444 So. 2d 1279 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
  • Latter & Blum, Inc. v. Nodier 442 So. 2d 854 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • Moity v. Guillory 430 So. 2d 1243 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    See, for example, Louisiana National Leasing Corporation v. ADF Service, Inc.
  • Tassin v. Slidell Mini-Storage, Inc. 396 So. 2d 1261 La. 1981
    Louisiana National Leasing Co. v. A. D. F. Services, Inc., Klein v. Young, 163 La.
  • Capitol City Leasing Corp. v. Hill 394 So. 2d 1264 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    WAIVER OF LESSOR'S WARRANTY In Louisiana National Leasing Corporation v. A. D. F. Service, Inc., the Louisiana Supreme Court was faced with interpreting a waiver of warranty identical to that found in the case at bar.
  • Southern States Equip. Co. v. Jack Legett Co. 379 So. 2d 881 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
    This conclusion is further buttressed by the recent Supreme Court case of Louisiana National Leasing Corporation v. ADF Service Inc. et al., La., (1979), which held a presumption exists that persons engaged in a business are aware of the contents of the documents they sign and the failure to carefully read the document which they signed is not sufficient cause to annul any of its provisions.