Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Bullis Thomas v. Calvert, 110 So. 621.

27 citing documents.

Crossno v. Smith 482 So. 2d 774 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
On the other hand, a broker does not become the owner of the right forever to collect a commission on any sale to anyone to whom he showed the property during the listing agreement’s period; “it is inconceivable that any sane person would bind himself in that manner.” Bullis & , 110 So.
Katz v. Young Men's Christian Ass'n of Greater New Orleans 466 So. 2d 603 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Bullís & Thomas v. Calvert, [ ] 110 So.
Jackson v. Free 442 So. 2d 1346 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
Sleet v. Harding, supra; Cramer v. Guercio, supra; Bullis & Thomas v. Calvert, 162 La.378, (1926).
Creely v. Leisure Living, Inc. 437 So. 2d 816 La. 1983
Cearley v. Farris 392 So. 2d 115 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
1st Cir. 1956); Bullis & , 110 So.
Sleet v. Harding 383 So. 2d 122 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
Cramer v. Guercio 331 So. 2d 550 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
Sleet v. Williams 291 So. 2d 495 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1974
2nd Cir. 1947) summarized the law in this area as follows: "The facts of this case in a large degree are very much like those of the case of Bullis & Thomas v. Calvert, et al., , 110 So.
Hamberlin v. Bourgeois 289 So. 2d 358 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
Perkins v. Laborde 271 So. 2d 658 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
Gement v. Doby 246 So. 2d 253 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
Munson v. Alello 199 So. 2d 577 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
Rolston v. Buff 130 So. 2d 732 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
The appellee's counsel cites the case of Bullis & , 110 So.
Womack Agencies v. Fisher 86 So. 2d 732 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
en broken off, the owner may take up the negotiations where they were left off and himself complete the sale, and the mere fact that the sale may in some degree have been aided by the previous efforts of the broker does not of itself entitle the latter to a commission; i. e., unless it clearly appear that those efforts were in fact the procuring cause of the sale", Bullis & , at page 383, 110 So.
Doll v. Untz 57 So. 2d 55 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1952
In Bullis & , 110 So.
Corbitt v. Robinson 53 So. 2d 259 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1951
334 ; Bullis & , 110 So.
Lehmann v. Howard 49 So. 2d 453 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1950
The well known and frequently cited case of Bullis & , 110 So.
Lawrence v. Baley 41 So. 2d 474 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1949
Ruiz v. Kiehm's Pharmacy 37 So. 2d 720 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1948
Cobb v. Saucier 30 So. 2d 784 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1947
[2] The facts of this case in a , , 623, wherein the court repeated the legal principles, often theretofore announced by it, controlling in cases of this character, in the following language, viz.: "On the other hand, this court has with equal consistency always held that, where a broker has failed to effect a sale, and negotiations have ceased or bee
Cruse v. Bruscato 28 So. 2d 56 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1946
Jeter Monroe v. Daniels 25 So. 2d 911 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1946
Latter & Blum, Inc. v. Metropolitan Life Ins. 23 So. 2d 193 La. 1945
709 ; Bullis & , 110 So.
Ramsey v. Harry Bros. Co. 11 So. 2d 256 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
In Bullis Thomas v. Calvert, et al., , 110 So.
Gamblin v. Young 187 So. 854 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
In Bullis & , 110 So.
Crasto v. Pohlman 127 So. 89 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
112 ; Bullis & Thomas vs. Calvert, , 110 So.
Viguerie v. Mathes 120 So. 542 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1929
244 ; Bullis & Thomas vs. Calvert, , 110 So.