Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Costa v. Yochim, 104 La. 170.

19 citing documents.

Thomas v. W & W CLARKLIFT, INC. 365 So. 2d 913 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1979
Caldwell v. Montgomery Ward & Company, Inc. 271 So. 2d 363 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1972
Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc. 205 So. 2d 422 La. 1967
Willis v. Grain Dealers Mutual Insurance 185 So. 2d 912 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
Grimes v. American Motorists Insurance Co. 145 So. 2d 62 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
365 , which in turn based such a , 28 So.
Bergeron v. Gifford-Hill & Co. 137 So. 2d 63 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
Aetna Casualty & Surety Company v. Allen 132 So. 2d 240 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
Garvey v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. 125 So. 2d 634 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1961
Williams v. Marionneaux 124 So. 2d 919 La. 1960
Bordelon v. Great American Indemnity Company 124 So. 2d 634 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1960
Williams v. Marionneaux 116 So. 2d 57 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
Ordinarily, in fact, an employer may recover from his employee the damages the latter's negligent conduct has caused the employer to pay a third party, , 28 So.
Spurlock v. Boyce-Harvey MacHinery 90 So. 2d 417 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
Ordinarily, in fact, an employer may recover from his employee the damages the latter's negligent conduct has caused the employer to pay a third party, , 28 So.
Rodriguez v. State Farm Mut. Insurance Co. 88 So. 2d 432 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
365 , which in turn based such a , 28 So.
McDowell v. National Sur. Corp. 68 So. 2d 189 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
of the Hardtner case, directly following the quotation in the majority opinion, it is stated: " , 28 So.
Hardtner v. &198tna Casualty Surety Co. 189 So. 365 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
Commercial Credit Co. v. Gatlin-McDonald Motor Co. 7 La. App. 249 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1927
If he then neglects or refuses to make any defense he may have, the judgment will bind him in the same way and to the same extent as if he had been made a party to the record.’ “In Costa vs. Joachim, , 28 South.
Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. Hardman 61 So. 559 La. 1913
have, the judgment will bind him in the same way and to the same extent as if he had been made a party to the record.” *532 , 28 South.
Muntz v. Algiers & G. Ry. Co. 38 So. 410 La. 1905
Fee v. American Surety Co. 1 Teiss. 112 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1904
In Costa vs. Yochim, , on writ of review in a case *114 arising in this Court, the Supreme Court adopted the view that, under certain circumstances, a person might be affected by a judgment in a suit to which he was not technically a part}7.