Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Stout v. Henderson, 102 So. 193.

24 citing documents.

Gorman v. Miller 136 So. 3d 834 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
VILLE PLATTE CONCRETE SERV., INC. v. Western Cas. & Sur. Co. 377 So. 2d 532 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
Soileau v. Fusilier 237 So. 2d 92 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
Our Supreme Court said “his action in granting or refusing the new trial will not be disturbed by this court on appeal unless it clearly appears that he has abused his discretion.” , 102 So.
Gulling v. EI Du Pont De Nemours and Company 228 So. 2d 750 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1969
Succession of Seals, supra; , 102 So.
Modern Appliance & Supply, Inc. v. Sapp 200 So. 2d 363 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
Raia v. WWL-TV 176 So. 2d 390 La. 1965
Raia v. WWL-TV 176 So. 2d 390 La. 1965
Clark v. Richardson 157 So. 2d 325 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1963
Succession of Seals 150 So. 2d 13 La. 1963
Ryan v. Barthelmy, La.App., ; , 102 So.
Scruggs v. Butler Furniture Co. 104 So. 2d 178 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
459, 461 , ‘ * * * No court may legally set aside and avoid a judgment by default, confirmed in strict conformity with all the requirements of law, in order to afford defendant an opportunity to offer a defense solely on the alleged ground that such action would be in furtherance of justice.’ See also Stout v. Henderson [ , 102 So.
De Frances v. Gauthier 55 So. 2d 896 La. 1951
De Frances v. Gauthier 55 So. 2d 896 La. 1951
Ryan v. Barthelmy 32 So. 2d 467 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1947
W.T. Rawleigh Co. v. Freeland 16 So. 2d 489 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1943
Stout v. Henderson , 102 So.
Elchinger v. Lacroix 189 So. 572 La. 1939
Item Co. v. St. Tammany Hotel 175 So. 421 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
Cutrer v. Cutrer 169 So. 807 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
Martin v. District Grand Lodge No. 21 of the Grand United Order of Odd Fellows, Inc. 146 So. 793 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
Brownlee-Wells Motors, Inc. v. Hollingsworth 127 So. 754 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
In the case of Stout vs. Henderson, , 102 So.
Donaldson v. Sheridan 124 So. 193 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1929
It may be proper to state at the outset that “we are not called upon in this case to review a statement of facts or a note of evidence taken upon the trial, and to decide whether the judgment is sustained by the proof,” as was stated by the court (Stout vs. Henderson, , 102 So.
Shreveport Grocery Co. v. Johnson 121 So. 351 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1929
Counsel cites the ease of Stout vs. Henderson, , 102 So.
Pfeifer v. Bacharach 121 So. 196 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1929
Stout vs.. Henderson, , 102 So.
Spillman v. Texas & Pacific Railway Co. 120 So. 905 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1929
Such was the holding in the recent case of Stout vs. Henderson (In re Stout) , 102 So.
Amite Hardware Co. v. Pierce 8 La. App. 662 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1928
163 ; Stout vs. Henderson, , 102 So.