DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Stephen L. Guice Co. v. Perkowski, 12 So. 2d 692.

15 citing documents.

  • Franks v. Louisiana Health Serv. & Indem. Co. 382 So. 2d 1064 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1980
    Stephen L. Guice & Co., Professional Billing Agency, (La.App.
  • Aubert v. Bourg 259 So. 2d 103 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
    App., (overruling East Bank Land Company v. Hoffstetter, 13 La.App.
  • Freeman v. Department of Highways 217 So. 2d 166 La. 1968
    456 ; Stephen L. Guice & Co. v. Perkowski, La.App., ; and Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Guillory, 212 La.
  • Treadaway v. Piazza 156 So. 2d 328 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1963
    art. 2021; McPherson v. Warren, La.App., ; Johnson v. Graham, La.App., ; Stephen L. Guice & Co. v. Perkowski, La.App., .
  • Brewster v. Yockey 153 So. 2d 489 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1963
    456 ; Braden v. Reisch, La.App., ; Williams v. Cormier, La.App., , and cases cited therein; Stephen L. Guice & Co. v. Perkowski, La.App., (overruling East Bank Land Company v. Hoffstetter, 13 La.App.
  • Long v. Foster & Associates, Inc. 129 So. 2d 601 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
    In our opinion the most convincing pronouncements as to the definition and effect of potestative conditions are found in Martin-Parry Corp. v. New Orleans Fire Detection Services et al., supra; Stephen L. Guice & Co., , and Chavez v. United Motor Car Company, Inc., La.App., 151 So.
  • Garlete v. Rodriguez 126 So. 2d 182 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1961
    Williams v. Cormier, La.App., ; Stephen L. Guice & Co. v. Perkowski, La.App., .
  • Braden v. Reisch 125 So. 2d 781 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
    456 ; Stephen L. Guice & Co. v. Perkowski, La.App., ; Slack v. Munson, La.App., ; Williams v. Cormier, La.App., .
  • Williams v. Cormier 100 So. 2d 307 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
  • Slack v. Munson 61 So. 2d 618 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1952
    456 , Guice & Co. v. Perkowski, La.App., , Weingart v. Delgado, 204 La.
  • Martin-Parry Corp. v. New Orleans Fire Detection Service 60 So. 2d 83 La. 1952
    See Articles 2034 and 2035 of the LSA-C.C.; Stephen L. Guice & Co. v. Perkowski, La.App., ; Morrison v. Mioton, 163 La.
  • Harvey v. Giardina 30 So. 2d 230 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1947
  • Ponceti v. Rothschild 26 So. 2d 235 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1946
  • Followed Schroeder v. Morris 20 So. 2d 437 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1945
    [2] So far as is involved the question of whether such a contract which contains a clause subject to a homestead loan, is unenforceable as containing a potestative condition, , and consequently hold that the clause concerning a homestead loan is not potestative but is merely a suspensive condition and that if it is shown that that supensive condition could have been complied with, as the Supreme Court held in Weingart v. Delgado, 204 La.
  • Harvey v. Riedlinger 17 So. 2d 60 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1944
    See Weingart v. Delgado, La.Sup., ; Stephen L. Guice Co., Inc. v. Benjamin Perkowski, La.App., ; also Morrison v. Mioton, 163 La.