Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Bright v. Bell, 37 So. 976.

13 citing documents.

Potter v. FIRST FEDERAL S & L ASS'N OF SCOTLANDVILLE 615 So. 2d 318 La. 1993
art. 2704 [7] ; , 37 So.
Landry v. St. Charles Inn, Inc. 446 So. 2d 1246 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
940 (La.1909); Gulf Coal Co. v. Bingaman, 6 La.App.
Gant v. Flint-Goodridge Hospital of Dillard University 359 So. 2d 279 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
Weber v. McMillan 285 So. 2d 349 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1974
2d 91 (La.App.3rd Cir. 1961); , 37 So.
LaFleur v. Sylvester 135 So. 2d 91 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
One notable example of an award in a , 37 So.
Loeblich v. Garnier 113 So. 2d 95 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
At this point, before discussing such contention, it should be noted that defendant does not attempt to distinguish the possession or remedy of the co-plaintiff tenant from those of the plaintiff landlord, possibly because "the possession of the lessee being the possession of the lessor, the disturbance of the one is necessarily the disturbance of the other", , at page 1090, 37 So.
Scheller v. Goode 69 So. 2d 96 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
Oglesby v. Town of Winnfield 27 So. 2d 137 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1946
Arkansas-Louisiana Gas Co. v. Parker Oil Co. 183 So. 229 La. 1938
DeMoss v. Police Jury 120 So. 137 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1928
iabilities of a parish and its governing officers differ materially from those of a city, the parish organization being “created almost exclusively with a view to the policy of the state at large” whereas a municipal corporation is created “mainly for the interest, advantage and convenience of the locality and its people.” Learned counsel for plaintiff, in brief, cite the case of Bright vs. Bell, , 37 South.
Campbell v. Hart 43 So. 533 La. 1907
Bright v. Bell 42 So. 436 La. 1906
Bright v. New Orleans Rys. Co. 38 So. 494 La. 1905