DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Lewis v. Manson, 61 So. 835.

23 citing documents.

  • Sleet v. Williams 291 So. 2d 495 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1974
  • Saturn Realty, Inc. v. Muller 196 So. 2d 321 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1967
  • Rolston v. Buff 130 So. 2d 732 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
    He cites as authority for this proposition the case of Moore v. Loe, cited supra, and United States Realty Sales of Shreveport v. Rhodes, cited supra, , 61 So.
  • Treadaway v. Lambert 96 So. 2d 115 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
  • Corbitt v. Robinson 53 So. 2d 259 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1951
    We agree with the principle of law set forth from Judge Odom's opinion in that case: "Cases like this fall, not under the decisions above referred to, , 61 So.
  • Lawrence v. Baley 41 So. 2d 474 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1949
  • Cobb v. Saucier 30 So. 2d 784 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1947
  • Ramsey v. Harry Bros. Co. 11 So. 2d 256 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
  • Seymour v. Franek 5 So. 2d 394 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
  • Gamblin v. Young 187 So. 854 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
  • Southern Casualty Co. v. Ross 153 So. 673 La. 1934
  • Crasto v. Pohlman 127 So. 89 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
  • Turner v. Swann 124 So. 717 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1929
    Cases like this fall, not under the decisions above referred to, but are governed by the rule announced in Lewis vs. Manson, , 61 So.
  • Carrere's Sons v. Edstrom 119 So. 284 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1928
    816 , ; Wittenberg vs. Davis, 3 La.
  • Leaman v. Valloft 5 La. App. 539 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1927
    In the case of Lewis vs. Manson, , 61 South.
  • Bullis Thomas v. Calvert 110 So. 621 La. 1926
  • Wittenberg v. McGrath 3 La. App. 244 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1925
    Quoting Lewis vs. Manson, , 61 South.
  • Fellman v. Ecuyer 2 La. App. 398 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1925
    ain persons by plaintiff fell through, and that afterwards one of the persons concerned in the former plan, together with a stranger to it, purchased the property directly from defendant, the verdict of the jury and the judgment rendered thereon are erroneous, and the same are set aside, annulled and reversed, for plaintiffs were not entitled to commission on the final sale.” In Lewis vs. Manson, , 61 South.
  • Freeman & Freeman v. Torre Realty & Improvement Co. 103 So. 334 La. 1925
  • Harvey v. Winters 1 La. App. 383 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1925
    rms fixed, is not entitled to a commission upon the sale made afterwards by the owner to the purchaser originally procured by the broker, when the purchaser had abandoned all idea of purchasing from the broker and the sale was the result of new negotiations between the owner and the purchaser or persons representing them.” The opinion in that case is in line with the decision in Lewis vs. Manson, , 61 South.
  • Grace Realty Co. v. Peytavin Planting Co. 100 So. 62 La. 1924
  • Ford v. Shaffer 79 So. 172 La. 1918
  • J. D. Pace & Co. v. Alexandria Electric Rys. Co. 70 So. 867 La. 1916