Cited by
Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Tuggle, 92 So. 699.
- Newton v. Inter-American, Inc. 209 So. 2d 522 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
-
Eden v. Johnson
176 So. 2d 476
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
1063 , (1922); First Nat.
- South Street Lumber Company v. Dickerson 106 So. 2d 513 La. 1958
- Babers v. Jolly 107 So. 2d 81 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1958
-
Williams v. Ralph S. Miller Shows
5 So. 2d 135
La. 1941
1063 , ; Bass v. Baskowitz, 170 La.
- First Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of Vicksburg v. Drexler 171 So. 151 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
- Hope v. Gordon 173 So. 177 La. 1936
- Inter City Express Lines, Inc. v. Guarisco 165 So. 727 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
- Superior Oil Co. v. Baltar 160 So. 626 La. 1935
- Self v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. 151 So. 193 La. 1933
-
Collins v. McCook
136 So. 204
La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1931
1063 , , it was held: “It is the established law of this, state that a writ of attachment in the case of a non-resident is not merely a conservatory writ, but is the basis and foundation of jurisdiction, which cannot be acquired except under the very letter of the law allowing process.” *418 The following excerpt from P
- Charles B. Nelsen & Co. v. Rodriguez 133 So. 347 La. 1931
-
Devant v. Pecou
128 So. 700
La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1930
1063 , ; also, the appearance of defendant for the dissolution of the writ, with a claim for damages, and his answer to the demand.
- Nelson v. Coppage 128 So. 529 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
-
Smith v. Wilson
128 So. 682
La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1930
1063 , , and authorities cited.
- Bass v. Baskowitz 129 So. 201 La. 1930
-
Smith v. Wilson
125 So. 302
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1929
1063 , , in support of these contentions.
-
Latham v. Glasscock
108 So. 100
La. 1926
“It is the established law of this state that a writ of attachment in the case of a nonresident is not merely a conservatory writ, but is the basis and foundation of jurisdiction, which cannot be acquired, except under the very letter of the law allowing process.” , 151 La.