DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Lillis v. Anderson, 21 So. 2d 389.

22 citing documents.

  • Price v. Huey Childs Builder, Inc. 426 So. 2d 398 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
  • Ostrowe v. Darensbourg 369 So. 2d 1156 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    3d Cir. 1970), and Sahuc v. United States Fidelity and Guar.
  • Ryan v. Alexander 336 So. 2d 944 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
  • Meador v. Toyota of Jefferson, Inc. 332 So. 2d 433 La. 1976
    3d Cir. 1970), and Sahuc v. United States Fidelity & Guar.
  • RO Roy & Company, Inc. v. a & W TRAILER SALES 277 So. 2d 204 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1973
    4th Cir. 1961); (La.App.
  • Prince v. Paretti Pontiac Co. 262 So. 2d 826 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
    Orleans, 1945, ; Reimann Construction Company v. Upton, La.App.Orleans, 1938, 178 So.
  • Baker v. KELLER CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION 219 So. 2d 569 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1969
    1961); Reimann Construction Company v. Upton, 178 So.
  • AA Home Improvement Company v. Irwin 203 So. 2d 888 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1967
    4th Cir. 1961); (La.App.
  • U-Finish Homes, Inc. v. Lanzl 202 So. 2d 339 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
    Among the factors to be considered are the extent of the defect or non-performance, the degree to which the purpose of the contract is defeated, the ease of correction, and the use or benefit to the defendant of the work performed.” In Lillis v. Anderson, La.App., , the difference between procedure in this type of action from that which pertains to other commutative contracts is clearly set forth, where the court stated: “While it is the general rule that a person suing to recover on a commutati
  • Graham v. Lieber 191 So. 2d 204 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
    73 , (1961); , La.App., 4th Cir.1961; , La.App., Orl.1945; Merrill v. Harang, 198 So.
  • U-Finish Homes, Inc. v. Michel 183 So. 2d 101 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
    Among the factors to be considered are the extent of the defect or non-performance, the degree to which the purpose of the contract is defeated, the ease of correction, and the use or benefit to the defendant of the work performed.” In the case of Lillis v. Anderson (1945), Orl.App., La.App., , in differentiating the procedure in this type action from that which prevails in recovery on other commutative contracts, the court stated on page 392: “[2,3] While it is the general rule that a person su
  • Airco Refrigeration Service, Inc. v. Fink 134 So. 2d 880 La. 1961
    386 ; Lillis v. Anderson, La.App., ; Mangin v. Jorgens, La.
  • Papa v. Louisiana Metal Awning Company 131 So. 2d 114 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1961
    Orleans, 1945, ; Reimann Construction Company v. Upton, La.App.
  • Loeb v. Neilson 128 So. 2d 447 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1961
    The rule was well expressed by this court in the case of Lillis v. Anderson, La.App., , 392: "While it is the general rule that a person suing to recover on a commutative contract must allege and prove that he has fully performed his part of the engagement in order to recover, it is the well-settled jurisprudence of this state that this doctrine is without application to suits brought on building contr
  • Jack v. Henry 128 So. 2d 62 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
    Plaintiff's complaint of error with respect to this award is based solely and exclusively on the theory that recovery of damages for inconvenience occasioned by violation of a contractual obligation is not compensable under our laws and as authority for said principle has cited Lillis v. Anderson, La.App., , decided in 1945 by the Orleans Court of Appeal (presently the Fourth Circuit).
  • Norman v. Brown 83 So. 2d 488 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1955
  • Baker v. Stamps 82 So. 2d 858 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
    2d 877 ; Lillis v. Anderson, La.App., ; Merrill v. Harang, La.App., 198 So.
  • D'Avy v. Briley 72 So. 2d 758 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
    528 ; Lillis v. Anderson, La.App.1945, ; A. M. Blodgett Const. Co. v. Cheney Lumber Co., 1912, 129 La.
  • Poche v. Landry 57 So. 2d 808 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1952
    Esposito v. D’Assaro, La.App., ; Canulette & Son v. Clesi, La.App., ; Polizzi v. Thibodeaux, La.App., ; Brandin Slate Co. v. Bannister, La.App., ; Lillis v. Anderson, La.App., ; Merrill v. Harang, La.App., 198 So.
  • Moore v. Usrey & Usrey 52 So. 2d 551 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1951
    In the case of Lillis v. Anderson et ux., La.App., , the following language of the Court, used in interpretation of Civil Code Article 2769, is quoted in brief by counsel for both parties to the present controversy: “The foregoing article has been construed by the courts to mean that, where a contractor sues on a building contract and it is shown that the work de
  • Esposito v. D'Assaro 49 So. 2d 356 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1950
    386 ; Brandin Slate Co. v. Bannister, La.App., ; Lillis v. Anderson, La.App., .
  • Mangin v. Jorgens 24 So. 2d 384 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1946