DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Dilzell Engineering & Construction Co. v. Lehmann, 45 So. 138.

16 citing documents.

  • William Alan Pesnell And La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2025
    433, 435, (1958) (citing Dilzell Eng’g & So.
  • Clark v. Cottage Builders, Inc. 110 So. 2d 562 La. 1959
    “The minutes of the court are prima facie proof of the court’s proceedings.” Dilzell Engineering & , 45 So.
  • Boxwell v. Department of Highways 14 So. 2d 627 La. 1943
  • Boxwell v. Department of Highways 14 So. 2d 627 La. 1943
    Dilzell Engineering & , 45 So.
  • Davis v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. 168 So. 370 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
    He places reliance in the cases of Dilzell, etc., , 45 So.
  • Gladney's, Inc. v. Louisiana Magazine 156 So. 659 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
    We think that the language of the Supreme Court in the case of Dilzell Engineering & Construction Co., Ltd., v. Lehmann, , 45 So.
  • Landry v. Hawkins 156 So. 795 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
    Ann. 787 , we copy from the syllabus: *799 “Any third person, who demands no subrogation, may tender to a creditor, either in his own name, or in that of the debtor, the debt due by the latter, in whatever species of property the debt is payable, and compel the creditor to accept the payment in that property.’’ In Dilzell Engineering & , 45 So.
  • Fudickar v. Inabnet 146 So. 745 La. 1933
    Derbes v. Till was decided by the Court of Appeal for parish of Orleans, and the organ of the court points out in the opinion the distinction between the decisions of this court in Dilzell Engineering & , 45 So.
  • Lucey Manufacturing Corp. v. Oil City Iron Works 131 So. 57 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
  • Patorno v. Baker 130 So. 573 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
    In Dilzell Engineering & , 45 So.
  • Derbes v. Till 128 So. 196 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
    283 , , we find a case in which a creditor for the benefit of the estate brought a suit against an individual stockholder to compel him to pay a subscription to stock.
  • Hannagriff v. King 123 So. 391 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1929
    934 ; Dilzell Engineering & Construction Co. vs. Lehmann, , 45 So.
  • Walmsley v. Brothers 92 So. 766 La. 1922
    The judge of the civil district court did not render a written opinion in the case, or give reasons for his judgment, except to say that he was guided by the ruling of this court, overruling an exception of no cause of action, in the case of the Dilzell Engineering & , 45 South.
  • Brooks-Scanlon Co. v. Railroad Commission 81 So. 727 La. 1919
  • Webre v. Christ 58 So. 145 La. 1912
  • Fitzpatrick v. Letten 49 So. 494 La. 1908