Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Johnson v. Marx Levy & Bro., 34 So. 68.

16 citing documents.

Exchange National Bank of Chicago v. Spalitta 321 So. 2d 338 La. 1975
Defendants contend that the same result is dictated by principles of Louisiana law, citing Article 2291 of the Civil Code (judicial confession), Johnson v. Marx Levy & Bro., , 34 So.
Compte v. Rateau 242 So. 2d 82 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
432 (1905) ; Johnson v. Alarx Levy & Bro., , 34 So.
Sikes v. B & S Supply, Inc. 164 So. 2d 81 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
Daly v. Abramson 117 So. 2d 772 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1960
Johnson v. Marx Levy & Bro., , 34 So.
Johnson v. Hunter 88 So. 2d 467 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1956
Himel v. Connely 61 So. 2d 876 La. 1952
492 ; Johnson v. Marx Levy & Bro., , 34 So.
Jordan v. Crichton 186 So. 612 La. 1939
353 ; Johnson v. Levy & Bro., *931 , 34 So.
Mahaffey v. Mill Creek Lumber Co. 147 So. 834 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
1044 , ; Rubenstein v. Files, 146 La.
Barnidge v. Cappel Motor Co. 125 So. 778 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
“When effective proofs are within the reach of a party and he fails to produce them, a presumption is raised that they would, if produced, make against him.” Johnson vs. Marx Levy & Bro., , 34 So.
Chadick-Hayes Provision Co. v. Pine Grove Grocery Co. 121 So. 348 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1929
156 ; Johnson vs. Levy & Bro., , 34 So.
Frankelite Co. v. Winteler Electric Co. 120 So. 505 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1928
In support of this proposition we are referred to Johnson vs. Marx & Levy, , 34 So.
J. P. Hudson & Sons Co. v. Godchaux Co. 118 So. 81 La. 1928
Rousseau v. Texas & Pacific 4 La. App. 691 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1926
349 ; Johnson vs. Marx Levy & Bros., , 34 South.
Kennon v. Brooks-Scanlon Co. 86 So. 675 La. 1920
Farley v. Frost-Johnson Lumber Co. 63 So. 122 La. 1913
394 ; and Johnson v. Marx Levy & Bros., , 34 South.
McDaniel v. Feitel Well Co. 5 Teiss. 195 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1908