Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Ehrlich v. Roby Motors Co., 117 So. 590.

27 citing documents.

Dickerson v. Begnaud Motors, Inc. 446 So. 2d 536 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
800 (2d Cir.1931); , 117 So.
Lacey v. Baywood Truck & MacHinery 381 So. 2d 863 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
1099 , (1952); , 117 So.
Gustin v. Shows 377 So. 2d 1325 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
Tauzin v. Sam Broussard Plymouth, Inc. 283 So. 2d 266 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1973
RO Roy & Company, Inc. v. a & W TRAILER SALES 277 So. 2d 204 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1973
Coco v. Mack Motor Truck Corp., supra; , 117 So.
Prince v. Paretti Pontiac Co. 262 So. 2d 826 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
Coco v. Mack Motor Truck Corp., supra; Ehrlich v. Roby Motors Co., 1928, , 117 So.
Ingersoll v. Star Chrysler, Inc. 234 So. 2d 85 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1970
1095 , (1958); , 117 So.
Gauche v. Ford Motor Company 226 So. 2d 198 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1969
1099 , (1952); , 117 So.
Baker v. KELLER CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION 219 So. 2d 569 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1969
Hanna Investments, Inc. v. Stovall 171 So. 2d 678 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1965
2d 691 (1958); , 117 So.
Bergeron v. Mid-City Motors, Inc. 162 So. 2d 835 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
This, we believe, brings the case within the rule of Reech v. Coco, supra, wherein the Court held: "Nor do we think that the facts of the case bring it under the rule many times recognized by this court, , 117 So.
Delta Equipment & Construction Co. v. Cook 142 So. 2d 427 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
Papa v. Louisiana Metal Awning Company 131 So. 2d 114 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1961
Coco v. Mack Motor Corp., supra; Ehrlich v. Roby Motors Co, 1928, , 117 So.
Harding v. Ed Taussig Edsel Motors, Inc. 130 So. 2d 517 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
Art. 2543 provides that in a redhibitory suit “the judge may decree merely a reduction of the price.” , 117 So.
Lemonier v. Coco 130 So. 2d 414 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
432 , and Ehrlich v. Roby Motor Co., Inc., , 177 So.
Lemonier v. Coco 112 So. 2d 436 La. 1959
432 , and Ehrlich v. Roby Motor Co., Inc., So.
Coco v. MacK Motor Truck Corp. 106 So. 2d 691 La. 1958
Madere v. Sharp 89 So. 2d 214 La. 1956
Reech v. Coco 65 So. 2d 790 La. 1953
871 ; Ehrlich v. Roby Motors Co., 1928, , 117 So.
Bayou Rapides Lumber Co. v. Davies 61 So. 2d 885 La. 1952
h as the defendant, Davies, has disposed of the property since the trial in the lower court, that portion of his demand which seeks a rescission of the contract is abandoned, and the defendant, as plaintiff in reconvention, before this court, now .seeks to have the judgment of the lower court affirmed.” A , 117 So.
Tucker v. Central Motors, Inc. 57 So. 2d 40 La. 1952
Ehrlich v. Roby Motors Company, Inc., , 117 So.
American Furnace Co. v. Great Southern Air C. Co. 16 So. 2d 140 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1943
Ehrlich et al. v. Roby Motors Company, Inc., , 117 So.
Sidney MacH. Tool Co. v. Blanchard 172 So. 532 La. 1937
Civ.Code, art. 2543; , 117 So.
McLachlan v. Cuny 156 So. 76 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
Roby Motors Co. v. Harrison 139 So. 686 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
“In a redhibitory suit, the judge may decree merely a reduction of the price.” C. C. art. 2543; , 117 So.
Standard Motor Co. v. St. Amant 134 So. 279 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
Galt v. Herndon 133 So. 800 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by