DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Bank of Napoleonville v. Knobloch & Rainold, 80 So. 214.

21 citing documents.

  • Rutherford v. Impson 366 So. 2d 944 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    Renaudin v. Zapata Development Corporation, supra ; Bank of Napoleonville v. Knobloch & Rainold, , 80 So.
  • Renaudin v. Zapata Development Corporation 339 So. 2d 942 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1977
  • Dahl v. National Bank of Commerce in New Orleans 196 So. 2d 578 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
    Art. 2276, Bank of Napoleonville v. Knobloch & Rainold, , 80 So.
  • National Co. v. Harper Aviation, Inc. 146 So. 2d 13 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
  • Marcann Outdoor, Inc. v. Hargrove 140 So. 2d 815 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1962
    917 , ; Bank of Napoleonville v. Knobloch & Rainold, , 80 So.
  • Blackwell v. Nagy 122 So. 2d 903 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
    846 ; and it is not even necessary to specifically plead such ambiguity; Bank of Napoleonville v. Knobloch and Rainold, 1918, , 80 So.
  • Johnson v. Capital City Ford Company 85 So. 2d 75 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
    Bank of Napoleonville v. Knobloch & Rainold, , 80 So.
  • Dupre v. Dupre 72 So. 2d 589 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
    968 ; Bank of Napoleonville v. Knobloch & Rainold, , 80 So.
  • Rosenthal v. Gauthier 69 So. 2d 367 La. 1953
    Code, to admit parol, not to explain, but to add to and contradict, a written agreement.” Bank of Napoleonville v. Knobloch & Rainold, , 80 So.
  • Sibley v. Lester 8 So. 2d 320 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
    "In this connection, , 80 So.
  • Snelling v. Adair 199 So. 782 La. 1940
    968 ; Bank of Napoleonville v. Knobloch & Rain-old, , 80 So.
  • Maison Blanche Co. v. Gilbride 164 So. 813 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
    to the extensive oral testimony concerning the sale of the washing machine, and are of opinion that, conceding, as defendant claims, that this is a suit on a written contract, the rule invoked to the effect that when parties “commit their agreements to writing, their intentions cannot be sought outside 'the four corners of the written instrument” (Bank of Napoleonville v. Knobloch & Rainold, , 80 So.
  • Gulf Motor Lines, Inc. v. European Agencies, Inc. 155 So. 523 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
    Ann. 28 ; Bank of Napoleonville v. Knobloch & Rainold, , 80 So.
  • McGuire v. Nelson Bros. 148 So. 56 La. 1933
    In the case of Bank of Napoleonville v. Knobloch & Rainold, , 80 So.
  • Trcka v. Bragmans Bluff Lumber Co. 141 So. 81 La. 1932
    Code: “ ‘Neither shall parole evidence be admitted against or beyond what is contained in the acts, or at the time of making them, or since.’ ” In this connection we cite Bank of Napoleonville v. Knobloch & Rainold, , 80 So.
  • Landeche Bros. Co. v. New Orleans Coffee Co. 138 So. 513 La. 1931
    566 ; Bank of Napoleonville v. Knobloch & Rainold, , 80 So.
  • ITEM CO. v. Polazzo 134 So. 345 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
    In support of that contention counsel refer us to the case of Bank of Napoleonville v. Knobloch & Rainold, , 80 So.
  • Lafayette Furniture Co. Inc. v. Graham 128 So. 526 La. 1930
    “A draft [or check] is not usually a payment unless it is honored.” , 80 So.
  • Kirschman v. Thomas Cusack Co. 120 So. 720 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1929
    Bank of Napoleonville vs. Knobloch & Rainold, , 80 So.
  • Barber v. Thomas 4 La. App. 631 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1926
    435 ; Bank of Napoleonville vs. Knobloch & Rainold, , 80 South.
  • Gibbons v. N. O. Terminal Co. 1 La. App. 371 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1925
    Bank of Napoleonville vs. Knobloch & Rainold, , 80 South.