DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State ex rel. Bulkley v. Whited & Wheless, Ltd., 104 La. 125.

21 citing documents.

  • Varacalle v. Turner 556 So. 2d 836 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
    The Court of Appeal relied on State ex rel Bulkley v. Whited & Wheless, , 28 So.
  • Matter of Succession of Dunham 408 So. 2d 888 La. 1981
    The Court of Appeal relied on State ex rel Bulkley v. Whited & Wheless, , 28 So.
  • Matter of Succession of Dunham 393 So. 2d 438 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    Bulkley v. Whited & Wheless, , 28 So.
  • Parnell v. Baham 228 So. 2d 53 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1970
    Bulkley v. Whited & Wheless, , 28 So.
  • Givens v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Ins. Co. 197 So. 2d 380 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1967
    Buckley v. Whited & Wheless, , 28 So.
  • Lee Const. Co. v. L. M. Ray Const. Corp. 52 So. 2d 841 La. 1951
    Bulkley v. Whited & Wheless, , 28 So.
  • Thomas v. Philip Werlein, Limited 158 So. 635 La. 1935
    Bulkley v. Whited & Wheless, , 28 So.
  • Harry B. Loeb Piano Co. v. Kessler 140 So. 398 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
    Bulkley v. Whited & Wheless, , 28 So.
  • Dickens v. Singer Sewing Mach. Co. 140 So. 296 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
    Bulkley v. Whited & Wheless, , 28 So.
  • Dover v. Atlas Assurance Co. 130 So. 828 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
    Every obstacle which the seller afterwards interposes to prevent the taking of corporal possession by the buyer, is considered as a trespass.” And cites the case of State v. Whited & Wheless, , 28 So.
  • Byrd v. Cooper 117 So. 441 La. 1928
    Bulkley v. Whited & Wheless, , 28 So.
  • U. S. Slicing Machine Co. v. Joseph 7 La. App. 451 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1928
    Bulkley vs. Whited & Wheeless, , 28 South.
  • Grapico Bottling Works v. Liquid Carbonic Co. 113 So. 454 La. 1927
    Bulkley v. Whited & Wheless, , 28 So.
  • McCaskey Register Co. v. Harris 4 La. App. 442 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1926
    See also Bulkley, State ex rel., vs. Whited & Whegless, , 28 South.
  • McMillan v. Lorimer 107 So. 239 La. 1926
    Counsel for plaintiffs also cite State v. Whited & Whelis, , 28 So.
  • Graham Paper Co. v. Lewis 1 La. App. 317 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1923
    In Buckley vs. Whited & Wheless, , 28 South.
  • Alfortish v. Pailet 4 Pelt. 59 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1920
    Buckley vs. Whited & Wheless, .
  • Whited & Wheless, Ltd. v. Calhoun 47 So. 415 La. 1908
    (O. S.) 10 ; Bulkley v. Whited & Wheless, Limited, , 28 South.
  • Barber Asphalt Paving Co. v. St. Louis Cypress Co. 46 So. 193 La. 1908
    It may be well to add, however, that in that ease the question of the validity of such a stipulation was not put at issue, and was not discussed; the court expressly and significantly stated, in the course of the opinion, that there was in the case “no controversy on the question of the ownership of the heater.” In the cases of Bulkley v. Whited & Wheless, , 28 South.
  • Julius Kessler & Co. v. Manhein 38 So. 473 La. 1905
    y sets forth the principle of the decision cited infra: “When all the essential elements and conditions for an absolute sale are present in a contract between parties, the effects flowing legally from that contract follow, whether the parties foresaw and intended them or not, and though they may refer to the contract as an agreement to sell, and not a sale.” Bulkley v. Whited & Wheless, Ltd., , 28 South.
  • W. T. Adams Machine Co. v. Newman 107 La. 702 La. 1901
    Buckley vs. Whited & Wheless ( ), and with that discussed in Heryford vs. Davis ( 102 U. S. 235 ), will show thát the contract between themselves and Slaughter Bros, was evidently a present sale, intended to be and actually in such form and condition as would enable them to insist that it evidenced either an absolute sale or a conditional sale unde