Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Smith v. Wm. D. Keith Motors Co., 111 So. 798.

13 citing documents.

State v. Kaufman 278 So. 2d 86 La. 1973
392 , (1927); State v. Brown, 148 La.
State v. Wright 205 So. 2d 381 La. 1967
392 , , in which it was held the argument in answer to remarks of defense counsel infringing upon constitutional rights could not be justified under any circumstances.
State v. Cascio 54 So. 2d 95 La. 1951
392 , , where the argument of the district attorney, which was an appeal to racial prejudice, was sought to be justified on the ground that it was made in answer to a remark of defense counsel.
Burtrum Bros. Motor Co. v. Dryden 40 So. 2d 525 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1949
The Supreme Court, , 111 So.
Hebert v. Hurwitz Mintz Furniture Co. 21 So. 2d 638 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1945
396 , ; Socola Rice Mill Co. v. Gitz, 165 La.
Roper v. Brooks 9 So. 2d 497 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1941
D. Keith Motors Company, , 111 So.
State v. Wilburn 198 So. 765 La. 1940
Finance Security Co. v. Mexic 188 So. 657 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1939
D. Keith Motors Company, , 111 So.
Green v. Norsworthy 135 So. 713 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
652 : “Whenever * * * it is impossible to differentiate between the attorney’s services for dissolving the attachment and those for defending the suit, such attorney’s fees cannot then form an element of the damages, to be allowed for the wrongful issuance of the writ.” See, also, , 111 So.
Dehan v. Youree 117 So. 745 La. 1928
Byrd v. Cooper 117 So. 441 La. 1928
But, since the sequestration was dissolved only because the merits of the case were with defendant, it follows that defendant is not entitled to attorney’s fees for having had the writ dissolved on such grounds, “for to do so would be to allow the fees virtually for defending the suit on the merits, which is not permissible.” , 111 So.
Socola Rice Mill Co. v. Gitz 116 So. 407 La. 1928
State v. Frazier 116 So. 176 La. 1928
392 , , where, as in this case, a colored man was tried by a jury of white men, for the murder of a colored man, and was convicted of manslaughter, the verdict and sentence were set aside and a new trial was granted because the district attorney, in his argument to the jury, made an unfair comparison between the trial of “a