DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Crochet v. Charles Holston, Inc., 857 So. 2d 492.

14 citing documents.

  • Sandra Ahmed v. Home Depot La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
  • Ahmed v. Home Depot 104 So. 3d 816 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    App. 3 Cir. 6/4/03), , writ denied, 03-1874 (La.11/7/03), .
  • Barnett v. Barnett 56 So. 3d 1044 La. 2010
    1st Cir.5/28/03), , writ denied, 2003-1845 (La.11/7/03), ; and Thibodeaux v. Thibodeaux, 93-1445 (La.App.
  • Sullivan v. Sullivan 976 So. 2d 329 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
  • Great West Cas. Co. v. STATE EX REL. DOTD 960 So. 2d 973 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
    1 Cir. 5/28/03), , 486 n. 4, writ denied, XXXX-XXXX (La.11/7/03), .
  • Dave Neal v. Town of Welsh La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    11/0703), for the proposition that only payment of medical benefits interrupts the prescriptive period in this case.
  • Neal v. TOWN OF WELSH 942 So. 2d 730 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    3 Cir. 6/4/03) , , writ denied, 03-1874 (La.11/07/03), , for the proposition that only payment of medical benefits interrupts the prescriptive period in this case.
  • Chad Anthony Mire v. Lacinda Michelle Stewart Mire La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    11/7/03), citing Hare and Faucheaux v. Faucheaux, 97-1369 (La.App.
  • Mire v. Mire 962 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    1 Cir. 5/28/03) , , writ denied, 03-1845 (La.11/7/03), , citing Hare and Faucheux v. Faucheux, 97-1369 (La.App.
  • Sharp v. Sharp 939 So. 2d 418 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
    1st Cir.5/28/03), , writ denied, 03-1845 (La.11/7/03), .
  • Dean F. Leblanc v. Jenny A. Hulin Leblanc La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    11/7/03), the court specifically considered whether retirement benefits earned by one of the parties were community property subject to partition subsequent to the settlement agreement.
  • LeBlanc v. LeBlanc 915 So. 2d 966 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    1 Cir.5/28/03), , writ denied, 03-1845 (La.11/7/03), , the court specifically considered whether retirement benefits earned by one of the parties were community property subject to partition subsequent to the settlement agreement.
  • Sanders v. Silverthorn 906 So. 2d 518 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
    1 Cir. 5/28/03), , writ denied, 03-1845 (La.11/7/03), , this court found that although neither party to the community property settlement agreement sought to negate or vary the contents of the agreement nor did either party contend that the agreement was ambiguous or that there was a mutual mistake in drafting or confecting the agreement, parol evidence was admissible.
  • Smith v. 4938 Prytania, Inc. 895 So. 2d 65 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
    1 Cir. 5/28/03), , writ denied, XXXX-XXXX *69 (La.11/7/03), (Supreme Court in Smith case directed appellate courts to consider appeal of denial of motion for new trial as appeal of judgment on the merits when appellant's brief shows intent to appeal on merits).