Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Lescale v. Joseph Schwartz Co., 40 So. 708.

31 citing documents.

Judy Lyons v. Ann Knight La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
This view was rejected in later cases: So.
Lyons v. Knight 65 So. 3d 257 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
This view was rejected in later cases: , 40 So.
Marrogi v. Howard 805 So. 2d 1118 La. 2002
[13] The distinction between the immunity granted to witnesses and the immunity granted to litigants was pointed out in Lescale v. Joseph Schwartz Co., Ltd., , 40 So.
Grant v. Politz 575 So. 2d 915 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
McCall v. Bologna 465 So. 2d 115 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
Freeman v. Cooper 414 So. 2d 355 La. 1982
Wattigny v. Lambert 408 So. 2d 1126 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
Wright v. Bruyere 397 So. 2d 40 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
Union Service & Maintenance Co. v. Powell 393 So. 2d 94 La. 1980
This view was rejected in later cases: , 40 So.
Freeman v. Cooper 390 So. 2d 1355 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
Adserv Corp. v. Lincecum 385 So. 2d 432 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
Calvert v. Simon 311 So. 2d 13 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1975
Viera v. Kwik Home Services, Inc. 266 So. 2d 732 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1972
Jones v. Davis 233 So. 2d 310 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1970
Lescale v. Joseph Schwartz Company, Ltd., , 40 So.
Russo v. Kelly 228 So. 2d 736 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
The Waldo case, on the issue of defamatory language in a brief or memorandum filed in a judicial proceeding, 58 So.2d at p., 211, held: “While there was a conflict in the earlier cases, the rule has been settled since, , 40 So.
Miller, Smith and Champagne v. Capital City Press 142 So. 2d 462 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
While there was a conflict in the earlier cases, the rule has been settled since, , 40 So.
Giordano v. Tullier 139 So. 2d 15 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
Sunseri v. Shapiro 138 So. 2d 661 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
1006 , , 32 A.L.R.2d 419 ; , 40 So.
Oakes v. Alexander 135 So. 2d 513 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1961
Waldo v. Morrison 58 So. 2d 210 La. 1952
While there was a conflict in the earlier cases, the rule has been settled since, , 40 So.
Robinson Mercantile Co. v. Freeman 172 So. 797 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
See Lescale v. Schwartx Co., Ltd., et al., , 40 So.
Monier v. Fontenot 165 So. 481 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1936
The Supreme Court, , 40 So.
Oakes v. Walther 154 So. 26 La. 1934
Cotonio v. Guglielmo 146 So. 11 La. 1933
Pelletier v. Pugh 132 So. 769 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
The right of a party to recover damages under our law, for libelous allegations contained in a judicial proceeding, is recognized in the case of Lescale v. Joseph Schwartz Co., Ltd., et al., .
Manuel v. Deshotels 107 So. 478 La. 1926
Sabine Tram Co. v. Jurgens 79 So. 872 La. 1918
Glisson v. Biggio 71 So. 204 La. 1916
Verdun v. Gilmore 55 So. 675 La. 1911
W. B. Thompson & Co. v. Gosserand 55 So. 663 La. 1911
We have decided in the *1031 , 40 South.
Lescale v. Joseph Schwartz Co. 43 So. 385 La. 1907

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by