Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Woodcock v. Baldwin, 34 So. 440.

32 citing documents.

Emory v. Gardner 415 So. 2d 339 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
Kreher v. TL James & Company, Inc. 274 So. 2d 734 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1973
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
Bankston v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. of Hartford 213 So. 2d 51 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1968
Grain Dealers Mut. Ins. Co. v. HARDWARE D. MUT. FI CO. 196 So. 2d 650 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
Alexander v. Alexander 196 So. 2d 628 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
Lafayette Memorial Park, Inc. v. Trinity Universal Insurance 191 So. 2d 318 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
585 , ; Woodcock v. Bald *320 win, , 34 So.
Rouseo v. Atlas Finance Co. 167 So. 2d 495 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1964
Knighten v. American Automobile Insurance Co. 121 So. 2d 344 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
Although Louisiana's doctrine of res judicata is more limited than at common law (see Woodcock v. Baldwin, 1902, , 34 So.
Tucker v. New Orleans Laundries, Inc. 114 So. 2d 866 La. 1959
Hart v. Hardgrave 103 So. 2d 910 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1958
Quarles v. Lewis 75 So. 2d 14 La. 1954
Durmeyer v. Streiffer 41 So. 2d 226 La. 1949
Himel v. Connely 197 So. 424 La. 1940
“The doctrine of the common law courts that res judicata includes not only everything pleaded in a cause, but even that which might have been pleaded, does not obtain generally under our system.” Wood *778 , page 275, 34 So.
Adkins v. Cason 170 So. 366 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
The thing demanded must be the same; the demand must be founded on the same cause of action; ■ the demand must be between the same parties, and formed by them against each other in the same quality.” , 34 So.
Cathey v. Pou 155 So. 773 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
Smith v. Chadick-Hayes Co. 139 So. 689 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
Price v. Town of Ruston 139 So. 55 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
Uncle Sam Planting & Mfg. Co. v. Reynaud 124 So. 827 La. 1929
“The doctrine of the common law courts that res judicata includes not only everything pleaded in a cause, but even that which might have been pleaded, does not obtain generally under our system.” , 34 So.
Richardson v. Trustees Loan & Guaranty Co. 120 So. 890 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1929
The thing demanded must be the same and the demand must be founded on the same cause of action.” Woodcock vs. Baldwin, , 34 So.
Spring v. Barr 120 So. 256 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1929
Ann. 298 ; Woodcock vs. Baldwin, , 34 So.
General Outdoor Advertising Co. v. Hollander 120 So. 490 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1928
It is only one of the reasons for judgment, and res judicata does not take place with respect to the reasons for judgment, but ‘only with respect to what was the object of the judgment.’ ” In the case of Woodcock vs. Baldwin, , 34 So.
Tennent v. Caffery 113 So. 167 La. 1927
Richardson v. Calovello 5 La. App. 55 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1926
Woodcock vs. Baldwin, , 34 So.
Bickham v. Gulf Refining Co. 109 So. 405 La. 1926
Richardson v. Caloavello 3 La. App. 535 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1926
In Woodcock vs. Baldwin, , 134 South.
Davis v. Moore 100 So. 691 La. 1924
Soniat v. White 99 So. 223 La. 1923
Liles v. Barnhart 93 So. 490 La. 1922
They cite, in support of their contention, , 34 South.
Smith v. Little Pine Lumber Co. 91 So. 165 La. 1922
American Machinery & Construction Co. v. Haas 54 So. 38 La. 1910
The following decisions are pertinent: , 34 South.