Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Dugue v. Levy, 37 So. 995.

34 citing documents.

Sherri Transier v. Barnes Building, LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
Transier v. Barnes Building, LLC 166 So. 3d 1249 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
Henderson v. Ayo 96 So. 3d 641 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Crescent Coating Co., Inc. v. Berghman 480 So. 2d 1013 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
Harrington v. Oliver 459 So. 2d 111 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
Kinchen v. Gilworth 454 So. 2d 1130 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
Tom Black & Associates, Inc. v. Thibaut Construction Co. 420 So. 2d 1150 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Cortiza v. Rosenblat 291 So. 2d 425 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1974
JH Jenkins Contractor, Inc. v. City of Denham Springs 216 So. 2d 549 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
Delta Paving Company v. Woolridge 209 So. 2d 581 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1968
*592 Counsel for Wooldridge cited the following cases to support this proposition: Minyard v. Culotta, La.App., ; Housecraft Division of Southern Siding Co. v. Jones, La.App., ; Vazquez v. Gairens, La.App., ; , 37 So.
Jim Walter Corporation v. Laperouse 196 So. 2d 539 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1967
4th Cir. 1966); , 37 So.
Graham v. Lieber 191 So. 2d 204 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
Brantman v. Conway 137 So. 2d 482 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
Minyard v. Culotta 128 So. 2d 797 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
Roland v. American Casualty Co. 80 So. 2d 387 La. 1955
Guidry & Swayne v. Miller 47 So. 2d 721 La. 1950
Gowan v. Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. 48 So. 2d 95 La. 1950
Holden v. Eugino 37 So. 2d 409 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1948
Merrill v. Harang 198 So. 386 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1940
Cary v. Brown 196 So. 579 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1940
Pittman v. Bourgeois 152 So. 765 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
es • they had incurred and such damages as the nature of the case required, for article 2765 of the Civil .Code provides that: “ ‘The proprietor has a right to cancel at pleasure the bargain he has made, even in case the work has already been commenced, by paying the undertaker for the expense and labor already incurred,, and such damages as the nature of the case may require.’ “ , 37 So.
Henri Petetin, Inc. v. Board of Levee Com'rs 142 So. 859 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
State Ex Rel. Globe Const. Co. v. Town of Plaquemine 143 So. 7 La. 1932
Wickliffe v. Cooper & Sperier 120 So. 52 La. 1928
Garrett v. Verlander 120 So. 492 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1928
Dugue vs. Levy, , 37 So.
Peterson v. Peralta 3 La. App. 516 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1926
389 ; Dugue vs. Levy, , 37 So.
Ferrand v. Van Benthuysen 2 La. App. 8 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1925
In the case of Dugue vs. Levy, , 37 South.
Hanemann v. Eberle 1 La. App. 21 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1924
368 ; Dugue vs. Levy, , 37 So.
Rapier v. Suburban Building & Loan Ass'n 1 Pelt. 158 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1918
In Dugue vs Levy the Supreme Court said: "A substantial performance oí the contraot is all that the law requires, and the employer will not be permitted to avail payment because the strict letter of the -agreement has not been, carried out.Slight deviations, or technical, unimportant, or inadvertent omissions or defects will not bar r
Hinrichs v. Edmonds Realty & Investment Co. 1 Pelt. 45 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1918
W. W. Carre Co. v. Weir 62 So. 219 La. 1913
Dugue v. Levy 45 So. 280 La. 1907
Cusachs v. Sewerage & Water Board 40 So. 855 La. 1906
bor already incurred, and such damages as the nature of the case may require.” The defendant board had, therefore, the legal right to cancel the contract at pleasure, upon paying to the contractor the expenses already incurred for labor and materials, and (in the language of the article) “such damages as the nature of the case may require.” These damages, , 37 South.
Lhote Lumber Mfg. Co. v. Dugué 39 So. 803 La. 1905