Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. American Sugar Refining Co., 108 La. 603.

51 citing documents.

Burguieres v. Pollingue 843 So. 2d 1049 La. 2003
1121 , 176 * (1965) ( , 32 So.
Ryan v. Grandison Trust 504 So. 2d 844 La. 1987
In disagreeing with the trial court on identity of thing demanded, , 32 So.
Ryan v. Grandison Trust 490 So. 2d 317 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Safeco Ins. Co. of America v. Palermo 436 So. 2d 536 La. 1983
Thibodaux v. Burns 340 So. 2d 335 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
Ledet v. Albert 315 So. 2d 855 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
This Court stated, also on page 295 of 292 So.2d: “A discussion of the various construction items claimed by the defendant to be defective in material and workmanship is not necessary in view of our holding, ‡ * y* , 32 So.
Sliman v. McBee 311 So. 2d 248 La. 1975
Scurlock Oil Company v. Getty Oil Company 294 So. 2d 810 La. 1974
Olsen Engineering Corp. v. Hudson Engineering Corp. 289 So. 2d 346 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
In analyzing this question we have examined, among others, the following cases: , 32 So.
Vico Concrete Company, Inc. v. Antley 283 So. 2d 830 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1973
Firemen's Pension and Relief Fund v. Sudduth 276 So. 2d 727 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1973
New Orleans Firefighters Ass'n Local 632 v. City of New Orleans 269 So. 2d 194 La. 1972
Johnson v. Sweat 265 So. 2d 801 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
Article 2286 must be strictly construed, and any doubt must be resolved against the party urging res judicata, , 32 So.
White v. White 233 So. 2d 289 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
Simon v. Broussard 216 So. 2d 668 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
Quinette v. Delhommer 176 So. 2d 399 La. 1965
Quinette v. Delhommer 176 So. 2d 399 La. 1965
Rouseo v. Atlas Finance Co. 167 So. 2d 495 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1964
Tucker v. New Orleans Laundries, Inc. 114 So. 2d 866 La. 1959
*223 State of Louisiana v. American Sugar Refining Co. (recently decided) , 32 So.
Bank of Terrebonne & Trust Co. v. Marcel 102 So. 2d 539 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
289 , ; Kendig & Co. v. Campbell, 2 McGloin 275 ; , 32 So.
Smith v. State ex rel. Collector of Revenue 100 So. 2d 524 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1958
Quarles v. Lewis 75 So. 2d 14 La. 1954
Liquified Petroleum Gas Commission v. Hiwan Petroleum Co. 74 So. 2d 327 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
State v. Magnolia Packing Co. 35 So. 2d 422 La. 1948
Aucoin v. Aucoin 34 So. 2d 819 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1948
The article of the Code provides that "the authority of the thing adjudged takes place only with respect to what was the object of the judgment" and in the case of State v. American Sugar Refining Co. , 32 So.
Picard v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York 31 So. 2d 783 La. 1946
I do not subscribe to that part of the majority opinion maintaining the defendant’s , 32 So.
State v. Service Galvanizing Works 1 So. 2d 357 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
Lloveras v. Reichert 200 So. 817 La. 1941
Himel v. Connely 197 So. 424 La. 1940
440 , page 441, , 32 So.
Hope v. Madison 193 So. 666 La. 1940
Our law and jurisprudence on the plea of res' judicata was concisely, and with emphasis, , 32 So.
Adkins v. Cason 170 So. 366 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
State of Louisiana v. The American Sugar Refining Co. (Recently decided) , 32 So.
Carpenter v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. 167 So. 223 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
Caddo Parish School Board v. Hardeman 162 So. 585 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
Cathey v. Pou 155 So. 773 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
State of Louisiana v. American Sugar Refining Co. (recently decided) , 32 So.
Price v. Town of Ruston 139 So. 55 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
International Harvester Co. of America, Inc. v. Shreveport Nu-Grape Bottling Co. 127 So. 47 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
277 ; State vs. Sugar Company, , 32 So.
Lavigne v. Louisiana Ry. & Nav. Co. 124 So. 609 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1929
Richardson v. Trustees Loan & Guaranty Co. 120 So. 890 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1929
General Outdoor Advertising Co. v. Hollander 120 So. 490 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1928
It may very well be that there had been a prior breach by plaintiff but that defendant could not avail itself of that defense, at that time, for many different reasons, among them, want of default, waiver of rights by permitting such use, without protest, etc. One of the leading cases wherein this principle is stated is State vs. American Sugar Refining Co., , 32 So.
Pearce v. Couvillon 113 So. 801 La. 1927
State v. Southern Cotton Oil Co. 113 So. 825 La. 1927
This last case, however, , 32 So.
State v. American Creosote Works, Inc. 112 So. 412 La. 1927
i A company engaged in the refining of sugar ( , 32 So.
State v. Dunbardukate Co. 5 La. App. 365 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1927
Under the ruling in the elaborate and learned opinion covering 46 pages in the case of State vs. American Sugar Refining Co., , 32 South.
J. H. Hines Co. v. Guillot 105 So. 593 La. 1925
Ballard v. Hammond Coca-Cola Bottling Co. 85 So. 597 La. 1920
106 ); and sugar refining ( , 32 South.
State Tax Collector v. Brown 74 So. 253 La. 1917
As the defendants do not come within the exclusion [being rice millers], it is manifest that the license claimed cannot be recovered.” , 32 South.
Furlow v. Guillot 66 So. 765 La. 1914
State v. Bemis Bro. Bag Co. 65 So. 554 La. 1914
Henderson v. Shreveport Gas, Electric Light & Power Co. 63 So. 616 La. 1913
Ann. 746 ); that refiners of sugar are manufacturers and exempt ( , 32 South.
State v. G. H. Tichenor Antiseptic Co. 43 So. 277 La. 1907
Unless we reject the only testimony that has been adduced, as unworthy of belief or insufficient, the judgment appealed from must be affirmed, since, according to that testimony, the defendant company, and its product, fall within the commonly accepted definitions of the words “manufacturer,” and “manufactured.” This court, , 32 South.