DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Home Services v. Marvin, 37 So. 2d 413.

23 citing documents.

  • Trahan v. Broussard 399 So. 2d 782 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
  • Martin v. AAA Brick Co., Inc. 386 So. 2d 987 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
  • Neel v. O'QUINN 313 So. 2d 286 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
  • Odenwald v. W.J.B.W. Radio Station 173 So. 2d 830 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
  • Schull v. Guillot 142 So. 2d 487 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
    App., ; Spicuzza v. Ranzino, La.App., ; Home Services v. Marvin, La.App., .
  • Jack v. Henry 128 So. 2d 62 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
    Home Service v. Marvin, La.App., ; Cairy v. Randolph, 6 La.
  • Bart Construction Co. v. Bailey 125 So. 2d 51 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
    Orl., ; LSA-Civil Code, Article 2769.
  • Engle v. Hardouin 119 So. 2d 510 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
    Home Services v. Marvin, La.App.1948, ; Kozlowski v. Fowler, La.App.
  • Scheppegrell v. Barth 117 So. 2d 903 La. 1960
  • Rhodes v. Keasby-Mattison Co. 110 So. 2d 747 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
    Reynolds Metal Co. v. T. L. James & Co., La.App.1954, ; see Home Services v. Marvin, La.App.1948, .
  • La Rocca v. Dupepe 97 So. 2d 845 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
    1948, , 415 wherein we said: “If we were to accept the reasoning .of defendant’s counsel with respect to ‘technicalities’ and apply it with all of its implications to this case we would, in .effect, be recognizing the validity of the sophistry that prevailed during the regime of ‘technicalities’ in Louisiana, usually referr
  • Standard Tile & Marble Co. v. Gray 85 So. 2d 356 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
    1948, ; Banks v. Reed, La.App.1951, ; Moore v. Usrey & Usrey, La.App.1951, ; Montague v. Milan, La.App.
  • Charles v. Stafford 83 So. 2d 926 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
    Home Services v. Marvin, La.App., .
  • Norman v. Brown 83 So. 2d 488 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1955
    1946, ; Home Services v. Marvin, La.App.1948, ; Banks v. Reed, La.App.1951, ; Moore v. Usrey & Usrey, La.App.1951, ; Montague v. Milan, La.App.1953, .
  • Leopold v. Leggio 79 So. 2d 925 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
    386 ; Sarver v. Barksdale, La.App., ; Home Services v. Marvin, La.App., ; Banks v. Reed, La.App., ; Moore v. Usrey & Usrey, La.App., ; Montague v. Milan, La.App., .
  • Michel v. U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 80 So. 2d 173 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
    386 ; Sarver v. Barksdale, La.App., ; Home Services v. Marvin, La.App., ; Banks v. Reed, La.App., ; Moore v. Usrey & Usrey, La.App., ; Montague v. Milan, La.App., .
  • Bourgeois v. Le Blanc 72 So. 2d 777 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
    App., 1954, 70 So.2d, 196 ; Reynolds Metal Co. v. T. L. James & Co., Inc., La.App., 1954, ; Bourg v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., La.App., 1951, ; Home Services v. Marvin, La.App., 1948, .
  • Angelette v. Hardie 70 So. 2d 196 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
    In Home Services v. Marvin, La.App.1948, , we ob-.
  • Montague v. Milan 67 So. 2d 351 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
    Home Services v. Marvin, La.App., ; Banks v. Reed, La.App., ; Moore v. Usrey & Usrey, La.App., .
  • Gill v. Citizen 63 So. 2d 24 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1953
    See Home Services v. Marvin, La.App., 1948, .
  • Pachi v. White 54 So. 2d 875 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1951
    especially in view of the fact that the testimony appearing in this record will, in all probability, be identical to the testimony that will be adduced in the event that a new suit is filed on behalf of the wife, however, the statutory law of this state leaves no other course open to us. We are in full accord with t
  • Randazzo v. Falgout 54 So. 2d 642 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1951
    cause of action can never be meritoriously pleaded to a petition sounding in damages for personal injury or death on the ground of contributory negligence of the plaintiff, unless its charges are such as to exclude every other reasonable hypothesis other than that the sole and proximate cause of the accident was due to the contributing fault of the plaintiff.” In Home Services v. Marvin, La.App., , we said: “If we were to accept the reasoning of defendant’s counsel with respect to ‘technicalitie
  • McClung v. Delta Shipbuilding Co. 39 So. 2d 754 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1949
    App., , 415, in which we said: "If we were to accept the reasoning of defendant's counsel with respect to 'technicalities' and apply it with all of its implications to this case we would, in effect, be recognizing the validity of the sophistry that prevailed during the regime of 'technicalities' in Louisiana, usually referr