Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Interstate Electric Co. v. Frank Adam Electric Co., 136 So. 283.

21 citing documents.

Thompson v. Bank One of Louisiana, NA 134 So. 3d 653 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Billups v. B.C. Enterprise Group, Inc. 104 So. 3d 577 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Farmers Cotton Co., Inc. v. Savage 714 So. 2d 926 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
Lobue v. Simco Industries, Inc. 690 So. 2d 105 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
Bank of Jena v. Robbie's Auto Body, Inc. 621 So. 2d 136 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
Tedesco v. Gentry Development, Inc., , 136 So.
Tedesco v. Gentry Development, Inc. 540 So. 2d 960 La. 1989
Mary Adams & Associates v. Rosenblat 539 So. 2d 860 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
Adams v. Louisiana Coca-Cola Bottling Co., Ltd. 531 So. 2d 501 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
Ford v. Golemi, Albrecht Ins. 522 So. 2d 1283 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
Boulos v. Morrison 503 So. 2d 1 La. 1987
Magee v. T. Smith & Son, Inc. 319 So. 2d 489 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
10:4 — 201; , (1931); Destrehan v. Louisiana Cypress Lumber Co., 45 La.Ann.
Broadway v. All-Star Insurance Corporation 285 So. 2d 536 La. 1973
United Suriname Trading Co. v. C. B. Fox Co. 242 So. 2d 259 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
St. Cyr v. Bryant 203 So. 2d 834 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1967
David Moore Development Co. v. Higgins Industries, Inc. 163 So. 2d 139 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
Article 3000; Busby v.. Walker, La.App., ; , 136 So.
Molero v. California Company 145 So. 2d 602 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
Article 3000; Busby v. Walker, La.App., ; , 136 So.
Tri-State Oil Tool Company v. Pioneer Oil & Gas Co. 135 So. 2d 297 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1961
Lady Ester Lingerie Corporation v. Goldstein 21 So. 2d 398 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1945
Lane-Wells Co. v. Ladak Oil Co. 195 So. 41 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1940
h limitations, it being sufficient to render the instructions or limitations nugatory that the agent’s acts in the premises are reasonable and such as would ordinarily be done by a person having the authority apparently exercised by the agent, or, more briefly stated, that they come within the scope of his apparent authority.’ ” , 136 So.
David v. Southern Import Wine Co. 171 So. 180 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
ts in the premises are reasonable and such as would ordinarily be done by a person having the authority apparently exercised by the 'agent, or, more briefly stated, that they come within the scope of his apparent authority.” That this view with reference . , at page 111, 136 So.
Broussard v. Boudreaux 155 So. 397 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by