Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Weaver v. Weaver, 34 So. 438.

18 citing documents.

Advocate Financial, LLC v. Lahatte 24 So. 3d 1031 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Horton v. Mayeaux 931 So. 2d 338 La. 2006
266 , (1903): So far as granting the new trial was concerned, that might have been done, within the legal delays, by the Judge ex proprio motu.
Lemalle v. Winn Dixie Louisiana, Inc. 452 So. 2d 414 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
266 , Jacobs v. Lagrante, 9 La.App.
Mitchell v. Windham 426 So. 2d 759 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
266 , Jacobs v. Lagrange, 9 La.App.
Pickering v. Hibernia National Bank 306 So. 2d 469 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1975
266 , ; Jacobs v. Lagrange, 9 La.App.
Sonnier v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company 248 So. 2d 299 La. 1971
266 , (1903): “So far as granting the new trial was concerned, that might have been done, within the legal delays, by the Judge ex proprio motu.
Langston v. Willis 177 So. 2d 620 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1965
266 , (1903), which in turn had cited Gale v. Kemper’s Heirs, 10 La.
Loomis v. Connecticut General Life Insurance 160 So. 2d 270 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
266 , ; Jacobs v. Lagrange, 9 La.App.
Robinson v. T. Smith & Son, Inc. 148 So. 2d 477 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1963
268 , ; Gale v. Kemper’s Heirs, 10 La.
Hearne v. Leonard Buick Co. 62 So. 2d 200 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1952
Mitchell Ex Rel. Tart v. Louisiana Industrial Life Ins. 16 So. 2d 458 La. 1943
266 , , this court said: “So far as granting the new trial was concerned, that might have been done, within the legal delays, by the Judge ex proprio motu.
Weinberger Sales Co. v. Truett 2 So. 2d 699 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
266 , ; Muller v. Hoth, 105 La.
Succession of Robinson 172 So. 429 La. 1936
Burthe v. Lee 152 So. 100 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
266 , .” In Nessans v. Colomes, 130 La.
Perry v. W. K. Henderson Iron Works & Supply Co. 133 So. 805 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
Iberville Bank & Trust Co. v. Zito 125 So. 435 La. 1929
Shreveport Grocery Co. v. Johnson 121 So. 351 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1929
Leon Marx & Sons v. Leichner 121 So. 685 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1928
267 , : “So far as granting the new trial was concerned, that might have been done, within the legal delays, by the Judge em proprio motu.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by