DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Audubon Hotel Co. v. Braunig, 44 So. 891.

18 citing documents.

  • Papa v. Sullivan 268 So. 2d 326 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
  • Sarpy v. Houssaye 217 So. 2d 783 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
    ecial defense, supported by his oath, * * * ’ and the provision of this Article which states ‘ * * * unless the defendant has answered the rule under oath, * * *.’ ” In opposition to plaintiff’s motion, it is defendant’s contention that this court does not have jurisdiction to try the motion, but rather that jurisdiction still lies with the district court, , 44 So.
  • Alexander v. Williams 205 So. 2d 456 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
  • Succession of Sagona 134 So. 2d 671 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
    In Audubon Hotel Co., , 44 So.
  • Seeling v. Seeling 125 So. 2d 783 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
  • Newman v. Gumina 72 So. 2d 11 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
  • Waldhauser v. Adams Hats, Inc. 20 So. 2d 165 La. 1944
    In the case of Audubon Hotel Co., Ltd., v. Braunig et al., , 44 So.
  • Beckley v. Bourcy 137 So. 775 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
    h judgment shall suspend execution unless the defendant has filed a special defense, supported by his oath, that all the facts contained in his answer are true, and entitle him to retain the possession of the premises, and unless further, he give bond with good and sufficient security for all such damages as the appellee may sustain.” In the case of Audubon Hotel Company, Ltd., v. Braunig et al., , 44 So.
  • Koshland v. Jones 118 So. 843 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1928
    1074 , , the Court affirmed that decision and said: “The requirements of that law are.
  • N. O. Motor Co. v. Kelt 3 La. App. 336 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1925
    App., 412; Audubon Hotel Co. vs. Braunig, , 44 South.
  • Church v. Taylor 3 La. App. 20 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1925
    “Our examination of Act No. 112 of 1916, p. 241, fails to disclose anything whicn affects the issue here presented.” In Audobon Hotel Company vs. Braunig, et al., , a similar defective- bond was given, as in the present case.
  • Roussel v. Dalche 105 So. 510 La. 1925
  • Doullut v. Rush 77 So. 116 La. 1917
  • Doullut v. Rush 77 So. 110 La. 1917
  • State ex rel. Mallu v. Judge of Division "D." 8 Teiss. 412 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1911
    which the judgment' was announced or rendered, the respondent replies that the delay is computed by hours and not by days and cites in support thereof the case of Audubon Hotel Co., vs. Braunig, , as well as Act 313 of 1908, and Revised Statutes 2157.
  • Lauga v. Baradat 7 Teiss. 447 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1910
    676; Audubon Hotel Co., Ltd. vs. Braunig, .
  • Reynolds v. Egan 47 So. 371 La. 1908
  • Audubon Hotel Co. v. Braunnig 46 So. 33 La. 1908