DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite James v. City of New Orleans, 91 So. 846.

21 citing documents.

  • Phoenix of Hartford Insurance Co. v. United States Rubber Co. 245 So. 2d 436 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
  • Gates v. Hanover Insurance Company 218 So. 2d 648 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1969
    The conclusions we have reached find ample support in the following cases: , 91 So.
  • Nettles v. Great American Insurance Company 155 So. 2d 87 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
  • Holahan v. Phillips 145 So. 2d 35 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
  • Arceneaux v. Louisiana Highway Commission 5 So. 2d 20 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1941
  • Bailey v. Simon 199 So. 185 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1940
  • Burglass v. Burglass 193 So. 275 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1940
    650, 652 , “a petition which does not show a cause of action is, legally speaking, no petition, and hence cannot be amended.” , 91 So.
  • Reeves v. Globe Indemnity Co. of New York 168 So. 488 La. 1936
  • Chennault v. Stovall 160 So. 146 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
  • Terzia v. the Grand Leader 145 So. 363 La. 1932
  • Flotte v. Thomas Egan's Sons, Inc. 137 So. 220 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
  • Federal Schools, Inc. v. Kuntz 134 So. 118 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
  • Kunnes v. Kogos 123 So. 122 La. 1929
    terests of justice to require, whether it be to supply a cause of action where none has been alleged, or other-’ wise; tbe law being silent upon tbe subject,- and interposing only upon tbe joinder of issue, and thenceforward limiting tbe authority of the judge to cases in which the amendment allowed will not alter tbe substance of tbe original demand.” , 91 So.
  • Petty v. Jones 121 So. 372 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1929
    581 ; James vs. City of New Orleans, , 91 So.
  • Owens v. Woods 8 La. App. 194 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1928
    See James vs. New Orleans, , 91 So.
  • Owens v. Woods 8 La. App. 250 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1928
    See James vs. New Orleans, , 91 So.
  • Cambas v. Burney 8 La. App. 206 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1928
    Also James vs. City, , 91 So.
  • Blake v. Jefferson-St. Charles Transfer Co. 8 La. App. 310 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1927
    See James vs. New Orleans, , 91 So.
  • Nolan v. City of Shreveport 7 La. App. 218 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1927
    in such manner as to leave it extending eight inches above the surface of the street, is one of fact and shows the street was obstructed, and while the extent of the obstruction may have been set forth with greater particularity as by stating the diameter of the pipe, yet we think that was a matter- of which the defendants may have availed themselves by an exception of vagueness (James vs. City, , 91 So.
  • Tiller v. City of Monroe 5 La. App. 473 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1927
    and she also alleges the place and nature of the obstruction and that it had existed in the locality for about three,weeks; and althpugh her allegations are vague, we are of the opinion they are sufficient to permit the introduction of evidence to show that plaintiff was exercising' ordinary care, and that the city should be held to have had implied notice *476 of the obstruction (James vs. City, , 91 So.
  • Wolff v. Hibernia Bank & Trust Co. 108 So. 667 La. 1926