Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Hall v. Godchaux, 90 So. 145.

30 citing documents.

Reeves v. Johnson 824 So. 2d 1277 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
McCreary Enterprises, L.L.C. v. Hemmans 802 So. 2d 807 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
Clark v. Harris 522 So. 2d 673 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
Wellborn v. Jones 445 So. 2d 787 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
Bearden v. Rucker 437 So. 2d 1116 La. 1983
Tomlinson v. Frazier 407 So. 2d 1385 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
Carrere v. Castano 395 So. 2d 949 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
Hamilton v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 364 So. 2d 215 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
Hall v. Godchaux, *220 , 90 So.
Frazier v. Allen 363 So. 2d 542 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
In Re Kennedy 357 So. 2d 905 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1978
Hobbs v. Fireman's Fund American Insurance Companies 339 So. 2d 28 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
Fielding v. Casualty Reciprocal Exchange 331 So. 2d 186 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
Charbonnet v. Hayes 318 So. 2d 917 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1975
LaCaze v. Johnson 310 So. 2d 86 La. 1974
Robinson v. Atkins 275 So. 2d 444 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1973
Brown v. Democratic Committee, Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Third District 238 So. 2d 531 La. 1970
90 So, 145 ; Melerine v. Dem.
Labouisse v. Koppel 229 So. 2d 161 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
McIntire v. Carpenter 202 So. 2d 297 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1967
Stavis v. Engler 202 So. 2d 672 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1967
Melerine v. Democratic Parish Executive Committee, supra; , 90 So.
O'Keefe v. Burke 78 So. 2d 165 La. 1955
In view of the holding of this court on the exception to the jurisdiction, , 90 So.
O'Keefe v. Burke 78 So. 2d 161 La. 1955
Suffice it to say that a perusal of all of these cases will show that they are not controlling under the peculiar factual situation reflected by the pleadings in this case, , 90 So.
Serpas v. Trebucq 1 So. 2d 346 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1941
68 — both general election contest cases — , 734, 90 So.
State Ex Rel. Carr v. Steele 200 So. 496 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
Migeot v. Barrilleaux 166 So. 157 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
office, because he is not assessed in the sum of at least $500, as required by Act No. 100 of 1922, this raises an issue which is altogether premature, as such a question could be raised only after the election of contestee to the position in dispute, to which, for aught we know, he may never be elected.” , 90 So.
Dumestre v. Vincent 144 So. 508 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1932
Leopold v. Ninth Senatorial District Democratic Executive Committee 8 La. App. 232 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1927
734 , , after stating that the' words “actual bona fide resident” did not mean that such resident should occupy his abode every moment during the period necessary to become a resident, the Court said: “However, we think that he is required to maintain such a relation with the place or premises so selected as will entitle hi
Melerine v. Democratic Parish Executive Committee 114 So. 711 La. 1927
Reid v. Brunot 96 So. 43 La. 1923
Francez v. Francez 94 So. 203 La. 1922
Bartmess v. Hendricks 91 So. 68 La. 1922