Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Barton v. Burbank, 71 So. 134.

25 citing documents.

Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College v. Allen Bickham La. 2024
Joseph v. Wasserman 194 So. 3d 720 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
Virginia Johnson v. Calcasieu Parish Sheriff's Dept. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
Johnson v. Calcasieu Parish Sheriff's Dept. 951 So. 2d 496 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
C & B Sales & Service, Inc. v. Ralph Slaughter, SEC. of Dept. of Revenue & Taxation La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
2 In support of this proposition, C&B So.
C & B Sales & Service, Inc. v. Slaughter 885 So. 2d 683 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
[2] In support of this proposition, C & B , 71 So.
Nora v. Stanford 633 So. 2d 1209 La. 1994
Nora v. Stanford 625 So. 2d 309 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
Collins v. Methvin 625 So. 2d 313 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
Putch v. Straughan 397 So. 2d 38 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1981
Succession of Moody 306 So. 2d 869 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
Bryant v. Travelers Insurance Co. 288 So. 2d 606 La. 1974
Bryant v. Travelers Insurance Co. 277 So. 2d 681 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
Pounds v. Yancy 224 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
LeBlanc v. Thibodaux 162 So. 2d 753 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
Washington v. Harvey 124 So. 2d 240 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1960
Sanders v. Luke 92 So. 2d 156 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
For instance, the plaintiff is not penalized if the delay is due to the prolonged consideration of the court to which the matter has been submitted and which is holding the case under advisement, , 71 So.
Newson v. Bailey 88 So. 2d 391 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
The cases which he cites in support of this proposition, , 71 So.
Metairie Bank in Liquidation v. Lecler 1 So. 2d 710 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
Bell v. Staring 170 So. 502 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
Landry v. Dore 149 So. 321 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1933
Hibernia Bank & Trust Co. v. J. M. Dresser Co. 131 So. 752 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1930
Barrow v. Duplantis 116 So. 572 La. 1928
“Where a case has been tried and submitted, with full opportunity for the cross examination of witnesses, but the judge before whom it was tried retires from the office before giving judgment, there is no reason why his successor in office should not give such judgment, after hearing argument and without hearing further testimony.” , 71 So.
Charbonnet v. State Realty Co. 99 So. 865 La. 1923
Lips v. Royal Ins. 89 So. 213 La. 1921