DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Serio v. American Brewing Co., 74 So. 998.

20 citing documents.

  • Holland v. Buckley 305 So. 2d 113 La. 1974
    25 , (1966); Serio v. American *117 Brewing Co., , 74 So.
  • Marsalis v. La Salle 94 So. 2d 120 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
  • Andrepont v. Ochsner 84 So. 2d 63 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
  • Blanchard v. Thibodeaux 44 So. 2d 210 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1950
    599 ]; Serio v. American Brewing Co. [ 74 P. 998 , L.R.A.1917E, 516]; Mercer v. Marston, 3 La.App.
  • Smith v. Hyman 6 So. 2d 368 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
  • Roppolo v. Pick 4 So. 2d 839 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1941
  • Byrd v. Spiro 170 So. 384 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
  • Tripani v. Meraux 165 So. 453 La. 1936
    It is virtually so said in article 2321 of the Civil Code, viz.: “Where *75 the master has turned loose a dangerous or noxious animal, * * * he must pay for all the harm done.” , 74 So.
  • Woulfe v. D'Antoni 158 So. 394 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
    The knowledge of the servant is not knowledge on the part of the master, unless the servant was made the agent of the master for the particular purpose of taking charge of the dog.” , 74 So.
  • Johnson v. Butterworth 157 So. 121 La. 1934
  • Buisson v. Potts 156 So. 408 La. 1934
    Code, art. 438; , 74 So.
  • LeBleu v. Vacuum Oil Co. 132 So. 233 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1931
  • Manuel v. Young 119 So. 555 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1928
    862; Serio vs. American Brewing Co., , 74 So.
  • Mire v. Ziegler Co. 8 La. App. 640 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1928
    Counsel also refer to Serio vs. American Brewing Co., , 74 So.
  • Moulin v. Monteleone 115 So. 447 La. 1927
    291 , , L. R. A. 1917E, 516; Vincent v. Morgan’s La.
  • Gillespie v. Blaise 3 La. App. 59 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1925
    599 ; Serio vs. American Brewing Co., , 74 South.
  • National Park Bank v. Concordia Land & Timber Co. 105 So. 234 La. 1925
    they so unanimously corroborate each other as to the time D. K. Jeffris, the president of the company, had knowledge of this timber cutting and conversion by the Black River Lumber Company, that there can hardly be any “Under the following authorities the knowledge of a president of a corporation relating to its affairs and business is knowledge to the corporation: ( 74 So.
  • Selser v. Revol 93 So. 675 La. 1922
  • Godchaux v. Texas & P. Ry. Co. 81 So. 706 La. 1919
  • Badie v. Columbia Brewing Co. 77 So. 768 La. 1918