DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Sleet v. Sleet, 33 So. 322.

19 citing documents.

  • Ford Marketing Corp. v. First Auto Parts 308 So. 2d 799 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
    hrase ‘all other accounts’, by the amendment in 1888, Act No. 78, was not intended to make the three-year prescription applicable to demands and claims arising under contracts, but, instead, to have the effect of making the prescription there provided applicable to ‘accounts stated or rendered, and verbally or tacitly acknowledged, as well as to open accounts not so acknowledged.’ , 33 So.
  • Credit Service Corp. v. Allen 223 So. 2d 210 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
  • United Carbon Company v. Mississippi River Fuel Corp. 89 So. 2d 209 La. 1956
    hrase “all other accounts”, by the amendment in 1888, Act No. 78, was not intended to make the three-year prescription applicable to demands and claims arising under contracts, but, instead, to have the effect of making the prescription there provided applicable to “accounts stated or rendered, and verbally or tacitly acknowledged, as well as to open accounts not so acknowledged.” , 33 So.
  • Great American Indemnity Co. v. Laird 73 So. 2d 6 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1954
    In support of their argument counsel for defendant insist that the prescription fixed *8 by Article 3538 applies to "all accounts stated or rendered and verbally and tacitly acknowledged, as well as to open accounts not so acknowledged", , 33 So.
  • Madison Lumber Co. v. Helm 8 So. 2d 648 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
  • Succession of Thompson 194 So. 433 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1940
  • White Bros. Co. v. Shinn 160 So. 823 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
    302, ; Block Co. v. Papania, 121 La.
  • American Furniture Co., Inc. v. Patterson 157 So. 174 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
  • Milam's Spot Cash Wholesale House v. Nomey 154 So. 466 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
  • Electrical Supply Co. v. Eugene Freeman, Inc. 152 So. 510 La. 1933
  • Succession of Spann 125 So. 289 La. 1929
  • Holmes Co. v. Hiller 7 La. App. 590 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1928
    In the case of Sleet vs. Sleet, , 33 So.
  • Paine v. Todd 6 La. App. 528 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1927
    694 , and to which we add as bearing on the question Sleet vs. Sleet, , 33 South.
  • Bennett-Brewer Hardware Co. v. Wakeman 107 So. 286 La. 1926
    The decision rendered in this case is not only contrary to the exact language of the Act 78 of 1888, amending article 3538 of the Civil Code, *411 , 33 So.
  • Bennett-Brewer Hardware Co. v. Wakeman 2 La. App. 376 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1925
    Counsel cite the case of Sleet vs. Sleet , 33 South.
  • Harper v. Barton 2 La. App. 317 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1925
    “This prescription only ceases from tbe time there has been an account acknowledged in writing, a note or bond given, or an action commenced.” Tbe changes were in striking out tbe word “open” between tbe words “other” and “accounts” and in interpolating tbe words “in writing” after tbe word “acknowledged.” Defendant’s contention appears to be sustained by tbe decision in Sleet vs. Sleet, , 33 South.
  • Harman v. Legrande 91 So. 726 La. 1922
  • Henry Block Co. v. Papania 46 So. 694 La. 1908
    The former article was intended to prevent the shifting of the prescription of three years applicable to actions of account (to that of the prescription of ten years) by the simple verbal acknowledgment of the account, or a verbal promise to pay the same.” “ , 33 South.
  • Houeye v. Henkel 40 So. 460 La. 1906
    Code, art. 2166; , 33 South.