DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Maloney v. Aschaffenburg, 78 So. 761.

29 citing documents.

  • Roxann Robar v. Patricia McCoy Jones La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
  • Robar v. Jones 176 So. 3d 1087 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
  • Bounds v. Makar 493 So. 2d 268 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
  • Latter & Blum, Inc. v. Richmond 388 So. 2d 368 La. 1980
    4th Cir. 1976); another has held that a broker becomes a dual fiduciary only after a transaction is consummated, , 78 So.
  • Houston v. Edgemon 367 So. 2d 151 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
  • Mexic Bros., Inc. v. Sauviac 191 So. 2d 873 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1966
  • Overruled Miller v. Smith 151 So. 2d 83 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
  • Haeuser v. Castrogiovanni 106 So. 2d 306 La. 1958
  • Overruled Lastie v. Cortinas 39 So. 2d 463 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1949
    688 , which case was overruled in Maloney v. Aschaffenburg, 1918, , 78 So.
  • Overruled Searcy v. Gulf Motor Co. 37 So. 2d 445 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1948
    688 , which case was overruled in Maloney v. Aschaffenburg, 1918, , 78 So.
  • McKelvy v. Milford 37 So. 2d 370 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1948
    Plaintiff also cites and quotes from the following cases, which he contends support his position herein, to-wit: , 78 So.
  • Martin v. Fontenot 27 So. 2d 457 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1946
    Maloney et al. v. Aschaffenburg et al. , 78 So.
  • Futorian v. Gerth 25 So. 2d 366 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1946
  • Schroeder v. Morris 20 So. 2d 437 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1945
  • Francis v. Blache 17 So. 2d 29 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1944
    In support of this contention, , 78 So.
  • Noto v. Blasco 198 So. 429 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1940
  • Williams Inv. Co. v. McWilliams 142 So. 611 La. 1932
  • Livingston v. Southport Mill, Ltd. 136 So. 289 La. 1931
  • Anderson v. Blache 134 So. 416 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
    *16 Taking up' the exceptions of misjoinder and nonjoinder of parties; we believe that this identical issue was decided adversely to • defendant’s contention in the • case of Maloney v. Aschaffenburg; , 78 So.
  • Texas Co. v. Mattison 125 So. 147 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1929
    Furthermore, while we have been unable to find any case in which our Supreme Court, after a consideration of the question, has decided that a real estate agent is authorized by the statute to receive deposits, there are many cases in which the Supreme Court has recognized the existence of the custom, notably Maloney vs. Aschaffenburg, , 78 So.
  • Izquierdo v. Kenner 123 So. 366 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1929
    However, on this point see Maloney vs. Aschaffenburg et al., 143 La., at page 528, .
  • Monteleone v. Blache 120 So. 900 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1929
    It is true that in Maloney vs. Aschaffenburg, , 78 So.
  • Buckman v. Stafford, Derbes & Roy, Inc. 119 So. 701 La. 1929
  • Carrere's Sons v. Edstrom 119 So. 284 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1928
    Maloney et al. vs. Aschaffenburg, , 78 So.
  • Breaux v. Burkenstock 115 So. 482 La. 1928
  • Millaudon v. Brenan 5 La. App. 583 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1927
    Maloney vs. Aschaffenburg, , 78 So.
  • Palmisano v. E. J. Stewart, Inc. 3 La. App. 66 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1925
    App. 424; Maloney vs. Aschaffenburg, , 78 South.
  • Babst v. Hartz 1 La. App. 498 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1925
    ownership of or dominion over the thing, even as between the parties, or put the thing at the risk of the promissee.” Caire vs. Mutual Assn., No. 7315 Ct. App. “A written contract whereby the owner of property agrees to sell it and another agrees to buy it, the act of sale to be passed within a stated time, is not a' complete sale, but only an agreement for the sale.’.’ Maloney vs. Aschaffenberg, , 78 South.
  • Bermuda Stock Farms Co. v. Gilliland Oil Co. 99 So. 708 La. 1924