DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Vinson v. Picolo, 15 So. 2d 778.

22 citing documents.

  • Brown v. Brown 430 So. 2d 140 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
    379 (La.App.1940); In fact, counsel for Mr. Brown steadfastly contended both in brief and at oral argument that “[w]e do not contend that the judgment making past due alimony [execu-tory] was obtained by fraud or ill practices.” Thus, it is apparent that Mr. Brown’s sole contention is that because of his impecunious circu
  • Roy v. Griffith 306 So. 2d 85 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1974
    379 (La.App.1940); ” From our review of Roy v. Griffith, supra, we are satisfied that the Court of Appeal did not consider the implication of the endorsements on the checks of January 11, 1971, and there is nothing in that opinion to explain the circumstances under which the checks were produced so as to conclude that Grif
  • Johnston v. Smith 284 So. 2d 149 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1973
    1093 , (1953); Hall v. Hall, supra
  • Royal Furniture Co. of Baton Rouge v. Benton 242 So. 2d 69 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
  • Investment Contracts, Inc. v. Jones 230 So. 2d 262 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
    (Orl.La.App., 1943) (4th La.App., 1962) which hold that irrespective of negligence or laches, when a judgment is obtained through some intentional artifice or deception and enforcement of the judgment would be inequitable and unconscionable, the judgment should be annulled.
  • Employers Liability Assurance Corp. v. Carter 227 So. 2d 616 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
  • Gulf Acceptance Loan Corporation v. Demas 205 So. 2d 855 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1968
    2d 376 ; Pryor v. Gions, La.App., ; Grant v. Securities Finance Company, La.App., ; Dixson v. Carter, *858 La.App., Scruggs v. Butler Furniture Co., La.App., ; Vinson v. Picolo, La.App., .
  • Steele v. Ruiz 202 So. 2d 376 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1967
    566 , ; Grant v. Securities Finance Company, La.App., ; Dixson v. Carter, La.App., ; Scruggs v. Butler Furniture Co., La.App., ; Romero v. Galley, La.App., ; Vinson v. Picolo, La.App., .
  • Central La. Elec. Co. v. Pointe Coupee Elec. Mem. Corp. 182 So. 2d 752 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
    491 , , and Vinson v. Picolo, La.App., .
  • St. Mary v. St. Mary 175 So. 2d 893 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1965
  • Gumina v. Dupas 159 So. 2d 377 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1964
  • Pfeiffer v. Hemisphere International Corporation 153 So. 2d 467 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1963
    542 ; Vinson v. Picolo, La.App., ; Sandfield Oil & Gas.
  • Sturgis v. Gulfco Finance Co. of West Monroe 147 So. 2d 782 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
    My appreciation of the authorities cited in the majority opinion, particularly Vinson v. Picolo, La.App., , and Dixson v. Carter, La.App., , justifies my conclusion that this case does not present that nature of unconscionable and inequitable effects which would entitle plaintiff to the relief sought.
  • Dixson v. Carter 138 So. 2d 227 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
    Vinson v. Picolo, La.App., : "The points raised by Picolo, as the basis of his attack upon the validity of the judgment, might have been successfully pleaded in defense of the original action or may have availed Picolo on appeal, but the action of nullity cannot be used as a substitute."
  • Hall v. Hall 127 So. 2d 347 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1961
    1st Cir., 1954, ; Vinson v. Picolo, La.App.Orleans, 1943, .
  • Romero v. Galley 79 So. 2d 625 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
    In Vinson v. Picolo, La.App., , is found the following: "In Miller v. Miller, 156 La.
  • Wilkinson v. Wilkinson 79 So. 2d 107 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
    In Vinson v. Picolo, La.App., , at page 780, we find: “This article has been liberally interpreted as appears by tm following quotation from Succession of Gilmore, 157 La.
  • Cryer v. Cryer 70 So. 2d 747 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
    421 ; , decided, by the Court of Appeal, Parish of Orleans.
  • Cryer v. Cryer 70 So. 2d 752 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
    In Vinson v. Picolo, La.App., , is found: "In Miller v. Miller, 156 La.
  • Montegut v. Louisiana State Board of Dentistry 68 So. 2d 634 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
    Counsel’s petitions do not make any allegations or claims of fraud or ill practice on the part of the defendant, and it is made clear in Vinson v. Picolo, La.App., , that the fraud and ill practice referred to in the article of the Code of Practice above mentioned pertains to one of the litigants and not to the court.
  • Star Shoe Co. v. Hendricks 45 So. 2d 428 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1950
    847, 848, 849, 956.” See Vinson v. Piocala et al., La.App., .
  • Walsh v. Walsh 42 So. 2d 860 La. 1949