Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Berlin v. Cusachs, 38 So. 539.

21 citing documents.

Garrett v. Walker 407 So. 2d 1309 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
Berlin v. Cusachs, Ltd., , 38 South.
Greenleaf Plantation, Inc. v. Kieffer 403 So. 2d 100 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
Berlin v. P. L. Cusachs, Ltd., , 38 So.
Skye Realty Co. v. Diversified Insurance Agency, Inc. 221 So. 2d 871 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1969
Berlin v. Cusachs, Ltd., , 38 South.
Russ v. United Farm Equipment Co. 89 So. 2d 380 La. 1956
Trichel Contracting Co. v. Little Creek Oil Co. of Louisiana 84 So. 2d 874 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
Berlin v. P. L. Cusachs, Ltd., , 38 So.
Ideal Savings & Homestead Ass'n v. Kerner 23 So. 2d 200 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1945
12 ; Berlin v. P. L. Cusachs, Ltd., , 38 So.
Ideal Savings Homestead Ass'n v. Kerner 23 So. 2d 200 La. 1945
12 ; Berlin v. P. L. Cusachs, Ltd., , 38 So.
Harrosh v. Fife Bros. Health Ass'n 1 So. 2d 323 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
Berlin v. Cusachs, Ltd., , 38 So.
Labatt v. Louisiana Adjustment Bureau, Inc. 185 So. 702 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
Berlin v. Cusachs, Ltd., , 38 So.
Converse v. Victor & Prevost, Inc. 159 So. 327 La. 1934
Administrators of Tulane Educational Fund v. B. G. Carbajal, Inc. 156 So. 416 La. 1934
Berlin v. Cusachs, Ltd., , 38 So.
Scharfenstein & Sons, Inc. v. Item Co. 141 So. 463 La. 1932
Berlin v. Cusachs, Ltd., , 38 So.
City Sav. Bank & Trust Co. v. Shreveport Brick Co. 134 So. 397 La. 1931
205 , 228 P. 959 ; , 38 So.
Clarke Garage Co. v. Rosenberg 128 So. 62 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
Brown v. St. Bernard Parish School Board 131 So. 760 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
In support of this contention counsel cites Berlin v. Cusaehs, Ltd., , 38 So.
Harris v. H. C. Talton Wholesale Grocery Co. 123 So. 480 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1929
Berlin v. Cusachs, Ltd., , 38 So.
Reliance Homestead Ass'n v. P. J. McMahon & Sons Undertaking Co. 1 La. App. 279 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1925
inary business may be fairly implied.” and to the following: “Parties dealing with the president of a corporation in the usual manner and wjthin the scope of the powers which the president has been accustomed to exercise without the assent of the directors and not ultra vires of the' corporation would be entitled to assume that he had been actually invested with those powers.” Berlin vs. Cusachs, , 38 South.
Gueydan v. T. P. Ranch Co. 100 So. 541 La. 1924
Berlin v. Cusachs, Ltd., , 38 South.
Haas v. S. Gumbel & Co. 99 So. 350 La. 1924
Robert Gair Co. v. Columbia Rice Packing Co. 50 So. 8 La. 1909
Parties dealing with the president of a corporation in the usual manner, and within the scope of the powers which the president had been accustomed to exercise with the assent of the directors, and not ultra vires of the corporation, would be entitled to assume that he had been actually invested with those powers.” , 38 South.
Crusel v. Houssiere-Latreille Oil Co. 48 So. 322 La. 1909