Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Reardon v. Dickinson, 100 So. 715.

37 citing documents.

Crawford v. Williber 413 So. 2d 302 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Corsey v. State, Through Dept. of Corrections 375 So. 2d 1319 La. 1979
Lassere v. Lassere 255 So. 2d 794 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
Polusky v. Allstate Petroleum, Inc. 180 So. 2d 815 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1965
Greater Baton Rouge Port Commission v. Morley 93 So. 2d 912 La. 1957
It is the well-settled jurisprudence of this state, , 100 So.
Chiasson v. Duplechain 56 So. 2d 615 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1952
Ayres v. New York Life Ins. Co. 54 So. 2d 409 La. 1951
Tucker v. Snyder 30 So. 2d 160 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1947
Authorities bearing on the question are cited and quoted from, -561, 100 So.
Watson v. Bethany 26 So. 2d 12 La. 1946
Pryor v. Pryor 22 So. 2d 831 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1945
Angelloz v. Angelloz 16 So. 2d 654 La. 1944
he jurisprudence on the question of misjoinder of parties defendant, the court said: “The general result of the foregoing may be said to be that the avoidance of a multiplicity of suits is always, desirable, but that parties are not allowed to join unless they have a common interest as to the point at issue, and that even then the court may exercise a discretion.” See, also, , 100 So.
Pope v. Employers Liability Assur. Corporation 14 So. 2d 105 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1943
Board of Com'rs of Orleans Levee Dist. v. Shushan 2 So. 2d 35 La. 1941
Seybold v. Fidelity Deposit Co. of Maryland 1 So. 2d 522 La. 1941
Ogden v. Rosedale Inn. 189 So. 162 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
Granier v. Bourgeois 188 So. 423 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
Cruze v. Life Ins. Co. of Virginia 185 So. 492 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
Cruze v. Life Ins. Co. of Virginia 184 So. 735 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1938
Keel v. Rodessa Oil & Land Co. 180 So. 502 La. 1938
joined as defendants where they have no community of interest in the subject matter of the litigation, as where the causes of action against each defendant are distinct and separate and arose from different and independent transactions; nor can two parties be joined as defendants, where one or the' other is liable, but not both.” In that case, , 100 So.
Delesdernier Estate, Inc. v. Zettwoch 175 So. 137 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1937
Brown Shoe Co. v. Unter 173 So. 579 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
Gates v. Bisso Ferry Co. 172 So. 829 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
We cannot see where any one of the defendants has suffered any injury by being forced to defend the action along with his codefendants.” , 100 So.
Succession of Coles v. Pontchartrain Apartment Hotel of New Orleans 172 So. 28 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
Plaintiff submits that “the test to be applied in considering a plea of misjoinder is whether the parties, plaintiffs or defendants, have a common interest in the subject matter of the suit,” , 100 So.
Succession of Kretzer 170 So. 906 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
Lykes Bros. Ripley S. S. Co. v. Wiegand Marionneaux Lumber Co. 171 So. 453 La. 1936
Jones v. Vernon Parish School Board 161 So. 357 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
47, title, Parties, at page 53, § 108, reference is made to the rule which prevails in Louisiana, and it is stated that here “the test to be applied is whether plaintiffs have a common interest in the subject matter of the suit, the matter of permitting the joinder resting within the sound discretion of the trial court.” Among the eases cited are those of Reardon v. Dickinson, *359 , 100 So.
State Ex Rel. Violet Trapping Co. v. Grace 162 So. 26 La. 1935
Girod v. Barbe 153 So. 326 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
To the same effect are the decisions in the following cases: , 100 So.
Officer v. American Eagle Fire Ins. Co. 139 So. 719 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
State Ex Rel. Elston v. Parish Democratic Executive Committee 138 So. 857 La. 1931
Overruled Garland v. Coreil 134 So. 297 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
Smith v. Phillips 131 So. 23 La. 1930
Carona v. Cangemi 129 So. 189 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1930
Reardon vs. Dickinson, , 100 So.
Peninger v. Cox 125 So. 754 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
558 , , the court held: “Subscribers to corporate stock were entitled to join as plaintiffs in action to recover price paid for stock though each plaintiff entered into separate contract, *211 and no one had any interest in shares acquired by others; all plaintiffs being induced to subscribe for stock on false representatio
Erskine Heirs v. Gardiner 118 So. 453 La. 1928
“The test to be applied in considering a plea of misjoinder is whether the parties, plaintiffs or defendants, have a common interest in the subject-matter of the suit, * * * ” and “after all, the matter was •within the sound discretion of the trial judge.1' , 100 So.
Lees v. Murphy 5 La. App. 264 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1926
The case of Reardon vs. Dickinson, , 100 South.
Pierson v. Castell Land & Harbor Co. 105 So. 274 La. 1925
562 , , we said: "Where there is a common interest in the subject-matter of the suit, and where the cause of action arises from the same common source, joinder will be permitted; otherwise it will not."

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by