Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Brodtman v. Finerty, 41 So. 329.

22 citing documents.

Daniel v. Zurich Insurance 184 So. 2d 773 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
Wilcox v. Lehman 12 So. 2d 641 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1943
Lowe v. Home Owners' Loan Corporation 6 So. 2d 726 La. 1942
The ruling was, as in the case of Brodtman v. Finerty [ , 41 So.
Vignes v. Barbarra 5 So. 2d 656 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
Lowe v. Home Owners' Loan Corporation 1 So. 2d 362 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
The general rule in such cases — where the owner is held not liable for injuries resulting from such defects when it is shown that such defects came into existence during the lease — , 41 So.
Duplain v. Wiltz 194 So. 60 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1940
Bradley v. Yancy 195 So. 110 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
Farve v. Danna 181 So. 823 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1938
The case, therefore, , 41 So.
Tesoro v. Abate 173 So. 196 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
In support of the proposition, , 41 So.
Cornelio v. Viola 161 So. 196 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
The article reads in part as follows: “The repairs, which must be made at the expense of the tenant, are those which, during the lease, it becomes necessary to make: “ * * * To windows, shutters, partitions, shop windows, locks and hinges, and everything of that kind, according to the custom of the place.” , 41 So.
May v. Schepis 147 So. 717 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
Richard v. Tarantino 131 So. 701 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
Clark v. Greco 127 So. 647 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
148 , and Brodtman vs. Finerty, , 41 So.
Douglas v. Pettit 120 So. 793 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1929
1104 , , the Supreme Court said: “The head of the family represents the family.
Klein v. Young 111 So. 495 La. 1926
The ruling has no application to this case, where the wife expressly assumed the risk.” *65 It seems that the Court of Appeal construed the decisions in the following cases as being, in some measure, authority for the decision rendered in this case, namely: , 41 So.
Yates v. Tessier 5 La. App. 214 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1926
“To windows, shutters, partitions,,,shop, windows, locks and hinges, and everything of that kind, according to the custom of the place.” It was the duty of the plaintiffs to have placed a hook on the screen and not the duty of the defendants, and that the plaintiffs cannot recover aga.insc the defendants, owners (Brodtman vs. Finerty, , 41 South.
Levi v. Crescent City Seltzer & Mineral Water Co. 2 La. App. 286 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1925
In Brodtman vs. Finerty, , 41 South.
Shelton v. Masur 102 So. 813 La. 1925
Ciaccio v. Carbajal 76 So. 583 La. 1917
In two cases it has been so held: , 41 South.
Boutte v. New Orleans Terminal Co. 72 So. 513 La. 1916
Cristadoro v. Von Behren's Heirs 44 So. 852 La. 1907
Bianchi v. Del Valle 42 So. 148 La. 1906