Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Laenger v. Laenger, 70 So. 501.

36 citing documents.

Perkins v. SCAFFOLDING RENTAL & ERECTION SERVICE 568 So. 2d 549 La. 1990
Theodore v. Bank of New Orleans & Trust Co. 365 So. 2d 29 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
McNeal v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. 278 So. 2d 108 La. 1973
The issue, whether sustaining an exception of no cause of action will serve as res adjudicata on another suit between the same parties, on the same subject matter, , 70 So.
Johnson v. Sweat 265 So. 2d 801 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
Keen v. Lirocchi 153 So. 2d 134 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
Dillard University v. Local Union 1419, International Longshoremen's Ass'n 144 So. 2d 710 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
Bruton v. Traders & General Insurance 111 So. 2d 816 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
Clark v. Cottage Builders, Inc. 110 So. 2d 562 La. 1959
Strudwick Funeral Home v. Crawford 35 So. 2d 838 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1948
[1] Article 536 of the Code of Practice has no application as the voluntary non-suit entered against the plaintiff had the same effect as if plaintiff's counsel had discontinued the suit ( , 70 So.
Williams v. American Employers' Ins. Co. 10 So. 2d 516 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
Rives v. Starcke 196 So. 657 La. 1940
Columbia Oil Co. v. Police Jury of Natchitoches Parish 194 So. 91 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1940
Lerner v. Bischoff 193 So. 236 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1940
Schexnayder v. Unity Industrial Life Ins. Co. 174 So. 154 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
Callender v. Marks 173 So. 785 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
632 , and in the concurring opinion by Chief Justice O’Niell, he said: “But a judgment dismissing a suit on an exception of no cause of action, where the petition merely lacks an essential allegation, of a fact which might nevertheless exist, the judgment is only a judgment of nonsuit.” , 70 So.
Callender v. Marks 171 So. 86 La. 1936
Succession of Guillory 167 So. 901 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
McCoy v. Arkansas Natural Gas Co. 165 So. 632 La. 1936
It is the settled jurisprudence of this state that “a judgment, sustaining an exception of no cause of action on the technical ground that the plaintiff omitted a necessary allegation, is, in effect, a judgment of nonsuit, and does not prevent the plaintiff’s renewing his demand on sufficient allegations.” , 70 So.
Landry v. Hawkins 156 So. 795 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
Price v. Town of Ruston 148 So. 512 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
Cornish v. Chaney 147 So. 363 La. 1933
"A judgment sustaining an exception of no cause of action, because of the plaintiff’s omission of a necessary allegation is not a bar to another suit on sufficient allegations.” , 70 So.
Sentell v. Texas & P. Ry. Co. 146 So. 353 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
Rosenthal Sloan Millinery Co. v. Picone 141 So. 494 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
Officer v. American Eagle Fire Ins. Co. 139 So. 719 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
Silbernagel v. Harrell 138 So. 713 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
Goudeau v. Roach 136 So. 88 La. 1931
Schneckenberger v. John Bonura & Co. 130 So. 870 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
Ducre v. Milner 126 So. 72 La. 1930
Petty v. Jones 121 So. 372 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1929
To this effect see Laenger vs. Laenger, , 70 So.
Ducre v. Milner 120 So. 253 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1929
Laenger vs. Laenger, , 70 So.
Smardon v. Broussard 6 La. App. 579 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1927
Counsel for defendant in presenting opposite views, rely with confidence particularly on the case of Laenger vs. Laenger, , 70 South.
Ducros v. St. Bernard Cypress Co. 114 So. 654 La. 1927
Plantiazo v. Snell 3 La. App. 590 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1926
*591 Laenger vs. Laenger, , 70 South.
Interdiction of Giacona 103 So. 721 La. 1925
In this connection, in Laenger v. Laengeiv , 70 So.
Hollingsworth v. Schanland 99 So. 613 La. 1924
Banahan v. Svarva 84 So. 200 La. 1920