Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Schoppel v. Daly, 36 So. 322.

36 citing documents.

Richardson v. Moore 304 So. 2d 425 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
Clement v. Redi-Bilt Corporation 249 So. 2d 607 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1971
Lottinger v. Mark II Electronics of Louisiana 179 So. 2d 644 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1965
Geraci v. Di Martino 136 So. 2d 151 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
95, 96 , we said: “Actions of this kind are barred by the prescription of one year, which is provided by article 3536 of the Civil Code, because it has been held, , 36 So.
Malatesta v. Lowry 130 So. 2d 785 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1961
852 , 17 L.R.A.,N.S., 1161; , 36 So.
Gaida v. Hourgettes 67 So. 2d 737 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
Blackburn v. Chenet 42 So. 2d 288 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1949
Crawford v. Magnolia 4 So. 2d 48 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
Duplain v. Wiltz 194 So. 60 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1940
Overruled Tesoro v. Abate 173 So. 196 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
Thomas v. Harman 170 So. 365 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
2322, 2692, 2693, 2695; , 36 So.
Convent v. Lama 169 So. 95 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
Actions of this kind are barred by the prescription of one year, which is provided by article 3536 of the Civil Code, because it has been held, , 36 So.
Potter v. Soady Bldg. Co. 144 So. 183 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
201, ; Ciaccio v. Carbajal, 145 La.
Ayo v. Holzenthal 141 So. 92 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
Thompson v. Moran 140 So. 291 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
Overruled Richard v. Tarantino 131 So. 701 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
319 , prevailed in this state, and although under it a landlord was liable only to his tenant, , 36 So.
Price v. Florsheim 127 So. 22 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
598 ; Schoppel vs. Daly, , 36 So.
Viola v. Convery 122 So. 90 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1928
Schoppel vs. Daly, , 38 So.
Lasyone v. Zenoria Lumber Co. 111 So. 670 La. 1927
Overruled Klein v. Young 111 So. 495 La. 1926
291 [201], , the restriction thus made was overruled, and the duty of the owner to keep his building safe was extended so as to protect those rightfully within as well as those without the building.
Gallman v. Young 3 La. App. 756 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1926
See Schoppel vs. Daly, , 36 South.
Evans v. Hollander 2 La. App. 409 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1925
124 ; Schoppel vs. Daly, , 36 South.
Shelton v. Masur 102 So. 813 La. 1925
212 , , and were again expressly overruled in Cristadoro v. Von Behren’s Heirs, 119 La.
Williams v. Perloff 1 La. App. 255 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1924
211 , ; Malmore vs. Martinez, 144 La.
Davis v. Hochfelder 95 So. 598 La. 1923
Breen v. Walters 91 So. 50 La. 1922
Plescia v. Le Roy 86 So. 824 La. 1921
Ciaccio v. Carbajal 83 So. 73 La. 1919
Illinois Cent. R. v. New Orleans Terminal Co. 78 So. 738 La. 1918
Badie v. Columbia Brewing Co. 77 So. 768 La. 1918
Ciaccio v. Carbajal 76 So. 583 La. 1917
In those two cases the court lost sight entirely of article 2322, reading: “The owner of a building is answerable for the damage occasioned by its ruin, when this is caused by neglect to repair it, or when it is the result of a vice in its original construction.” , 36 South.
Allain v. Frigola 74 So. 404 La. 1917
Boutte v. New Orleans Terminal Co. 72 So. 513 La. 1916
329 , in support of the doctrine that the lessor was not liable for damages to the wife of the lessee, because of the latter’s neglect to make the necessary repairs; hut the decision to the contrary, , 36 South.
Wise v. Lavigne 70 So. 103 La. 1915
Shield v. F. Johnson & Son Co. 61 So. 787 La. 1913
Barton v. Cumberland Telephone & Telegraph Co. 40 So. 590 La. 1906