DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Heath v. Suburban Building & Loan Ass'n, 163 So. 546.

21 citing documents.

  • Smith v. Silvernail 553 So. 2d 1029 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
  • Good v. Citizens' Homestead Ass'n 148 So. 2d 433 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
    As this court said in Heath v. Suburban Building & Loan Ass’n, La.App., , 548: “[1] All of the cases cited by counsel for defendant involve situations in which the adjudicatee refused to accept title or to pay the purchase price, and necessarily in each of them the court held that, where the bid price is not paid and there is no consummation of the sale by deed evidencing it, necessarily
  • Malatesta v. Lowry 130 So. 2d 785 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1961
    583 ; Thiel v. Kern, La.App., ; Coleman v. Rein, La.App., ; Heath v. Suburban Building & Loan Ass'n, La.App., ; Hanover v. Brady, La.App., 148 So.
  • Matranga v. Hilman 94 So. 2d 568 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
    495 ; Heath v. Suburban Building & Loan Association, La.App., ; Byrd v. Spiro, La.
  • Green v. Billa 86 So. 2d 578 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1956
    In Heath v. Suburban Building & Loan Association [La.App.], , we quoted from Hanover v. Brady, La.App., 148 So.
  • Thiel v. Kern 34 So. 2d 296 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1948
    App., ; Hanover et al. v. Brady, La.
  • Cheatham v. Bohrer 17 So. 2d 492 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1944
    Heath v. Suburban Building Loan Ass'n, La.App., .
  • Fontenot v. Raftery 14 So. 2d 77 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1943
    Loan Ass'n, La.App., , and cases therein cited.
  • Johnson v. Nichel 6 So. 2d 780 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
    495 ; Heath v. Suburban Building Loan Association, La.App., ; Tesoro v. Abate, La.App., 173 So.
  • Smith v. Hyman 6 So. 2d 368 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
    This misunderstanding is the result of a .
  • Wallace v. Meyer 4 So. 2d 784 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
    495 ; Heath v. Suburban Building Loan Association, La.App., ; Tesoro v. Abate, La.App., 173 So.
  • Roppolo v. Pick 4 So. 2d 839 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1941
    495 ; Heath v. Suburban Building Loan Association, La.App., ; Tesoro v. Abate, La.App., 173 So.
  • Staes v. Terranova 4 So. 2d 453 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
    we quoted from Hanover v. Brady, La.App., 148 So.
  • Hughes v. Abate 2 So. 2d 68 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
    495 ; Heath v. Suburban Building Loan Association, La.App., ; Tesoro v. Abate, La.App., 173 So.
  • Lowe v. Home Owners' Loan Corporation 1 So. 2d 362 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
    While it is true that the liability of an owner to persons rightfully on or in his property has been very much broadened and that articles 670 and 2322 have, by our jurisprudence, been liberalized to such an extent that the owner of a building is held to be almost an insurer of the safety of such persons (Heath v. Suburban Building Loan Association, et al., La.App., ), and, while it is also true that this liability exists even though the property is in possession of a tenant and even though the
  • Duplain v. Wiltz 194 So. 60 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1940
    Revised Civil Code, articles 2692 and 2695, is clear and the numerous decisions of the courts of this state have held these articles to be applicable, not only to the lessee, but to his guests and those lawfully in the building.” This Court, which was reversed in the Klein case and, therefore, less' likely to err again, held in Heath v. Suburban Building & Loan Association, 1935, , that “if the lease is executed by the husband, * * * the wife does not occupy the status of tenant”.
  • Bradley v. Yancy 195 So. 110 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
    196 ; Heath v. Suburban Building & Loan Ass’n, La.App., ; Morris v. Hava, La.App., 180 So.
  • Mills v. Heidingsfield 192 So. 786 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
    267 , and Heath v. Suburban Building & Loan Ass’n et al. , decided by the Court of’ Appeal, Orleans Circuit, as authorizing recovery by a licensee from the property owner.
  • Guidry v. Hamlin 188 So. 662 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
    We will assume, for the moment, that the child of a tenant may rely upon those articles as placing upon the lessor obligations in favor of anyone other than the tenant himself, and, in view of what we said in Heath v. Suburban Building & Loan Association, La.App., , and of what the Supreme Court said in Ciaccio v. Carbajal, 142 La.
  • Morris v. Hava 180 So. 216 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1938
    & Loan Ass’n et al., , we again said: *219 “If the lease is executed by the husband, then, under well-established jurisprudence, the wife does not occupy the status of tenant.” See, also, Tesoro v. Abate, La.App., 173 So.
  • Tesoro v. Abate 173 So. 196 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
    in discussing this question: “It seems, then, that in accordance with the current jurisprudence in this state there is no liability to a. licensee unless there was negligence on the part of the owner, or unless the damage can be shown to have occurred as the result of a vice in original construction.” In the in