Cited by
Opinions in Louisiana that cite Hicks v. Tate, 7 So. 2d 737.
- Martinez v. THERMA-KING SALES & SERV. DIV. OF TRAS. 346 So. 2d 798 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
-
Johnson v. Banner Corporation
308 So. 2d 534
La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1975
It is clear from the cases interpretating 9:4812 that a plaintiff has the burden of proving that the lien was filed within 60 days of completion, (La.App.
- Albert K. Newlin, Inc. v. Weingarten's Markets Realty Co. 253 So. 2d 594 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
-
Hattiesburg Manufacturing Co. v. Pepe
140 So. 2d 449
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
886 ; Hicks v. Tate, La.App., .
-
City of Alexandria v. Shevnin
126 So. 2d 336
La. 1961
Hicks v. Tate, La.App., ; Moore Steel, Inc. v. Wright’s Succession, La.App., ; Patterson v. Lumberman’s Supply Co., Inc., La.App., 167 So.
-
Windham Woodwork & Supply Co v. Hopkins
122 So. 2d 106
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
715 ; Electric Contracting Company v. Brown, La.App., ; Hicks v. Tate, La.App., ; General Lumber & Supply Co. v. McLellan, La.App., 200 So.
-
Cain v. Central Plumbing and Heating Company
85 So. 2d 376
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
899 ; Hicks v. Tate, La.App., 1 Cir., ; Bailey & Sons v. Western Geographical Co., La.App., ; *379 Electrical Contracting Co. v. Brown, La.
-
WM Bailey & Sons v. Western Geophysical Co.
66 So. 2d 424
La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1953
715 ; Electric Contracting Company v. Brown, La.App., ; Hicks v. Tate, La.App., ; General Lumber & Supply Co., v. McLellan, La.
-
Rathborne Lumber & Supply Co. v. Falgout
62 So. 2d 507
La. 1952
See Markel v. Walker, La.App., , Markel v. C. W. M. Construction Co., La.App., and Hicks v. Tate, La.App., .
-
United Credit Co. v. Croswell Co.
47 So. 2d 443
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1950
See Hicks v. Tate, La.App., and cases there cited.
- Electric Contracting Co. v. Brown 39 So. 2d 100 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1949
- Bart v. Conforto 30 So. 2d 885 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1947
-
N.O. Nelson Co. v. Tate
7 So. 2d 740
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
which had been consolidated for argument and submission with this suit, it is now ordered that the judgment appealed from in this case be and the same is hereby affirmed at the costs of the appellant herein.