DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Leaman v. Rauschkolb, 1 So. 2d 338.

15 citing documents.

  • Gertrude Gardner, Inc. v. Campo 411 So. 2d 681 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
  • Puckett v. Broussard 356 So. 2d 1021 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    The applicable law in a (Orl.La.App.1941) as follows: “We discern, therefore, that it is the view of the Supreme Court that agency contracts of this kind should be interpreted to mean that the vendor hires the real estate agent with the intention of becoming liable for a commission only in the event a sale of the property is consummated; tha
  • Farrier v. Guillory 342 So. 2d 1167 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    663 , on rehearing (Orl.
  • Strahan v. Weiland 216 So. 2d 169 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
    Doll v. Russo, supra; Leaman v. Rauschkolb, La.App., .
  • Landry & Passman Realty, Inc. v. Keen 170 So. 2d 775 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
    See Leaman v. Rauschkolb, La.App., .
  • Dutel v. Bitterwolf 166 So. 2d 526 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
    See Treadaway v. Amundson, La.App., ; Leaman v. Rauschkolb, La.App., .
  • Clesi, Inc. v. Quaglino 137 So. 2d 500 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
    App., ; Leaman v. Rauschkolb, La.App., ; Mathews Bros. v. Bernius, 169 La.
  • Webb v. Gee 128 So. 2d 449 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
  • Kurtz v. Smith 110 So. 2d 773 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1959
  • Treadaway v. Amundson 88 So. 2d 67 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
    556 ; Leaman v. Rauschkolb, La.App., ; Cotter v. Figaro, La.App., ; Walker v. Moore, La.App., ; Cox v. Green, La.App., .
  • Cox v. Green 70 So. 2d 724 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
    551 ; Leaman v. Rauschkolb, La.App., ; Neal v. Halliburton, La.App., ; Blackshear v. Landey, La.App., ; Cabral v. Barkerding, La.App., .
  • Walker v. Moore 68 So. 2d 222 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
    In the case of Leaman v. Rauschkolb, La.App., Orleans 1941, , Judge McCaleb took occasion to review the Louisiana jurisprudence on this question and thus summarized his findings: “We discern, therefore, that it is the view of the Supreme Court that agency contracts of this kind should be interpreted to mean that the vendor hires the real estate agent with the intention of
  • McKelvy v. Milford 37 So. 2d 370 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1948
  • Cotter v. Figaro 36 So. 2d 291 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1948
  • Doll v. Russo 7 So. 2d 406 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
    341, we discussed these several cases and held that as a result of them it now appears: "* * * that the vendor is not responsible for a commission in the event the sale is not consummated unless (1) it appears that he, the vendor, was at fault in that he refused to convey the title to the purchaser without cause or