Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Standard Oil Co., 113 So. 867.

31 citing documents.

Heirs of John Beckwith LLC, Price Heirs LLC, James M. Foster Trust, Linda Price Ellzey, John v. Price, … La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2021
.”)(Emphasis added); C.f., (La.
State v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc. 208 So. 3d 384 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
216, 221 (1910) , 113 So.
Bd. of Com'rs of Orleans Levee Dist. v. Dept. of Natural Resources 496 So. 2d 281 La. 1986
373 (1929); State v. Standard Oil *289 Co., , 113 So.
STATE ETC. v. City of Pineville 403 So. 2d 49 La. 1981
Hero Lands Co. v. Board of Commissioners 366 So. 2d 593 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
Dynamic Exploration, Inc. v. LeBlanc 362 So. 2d 734 La. 1978
Distinguished State Ex Rel. Guste v. Simoni, Heck & Associates 331 So. 2d 478 La. 1976
Daigre v. Cochrane 287 So. 2d 539 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1973
State v. Standard *544 Oil Co., , 113 So.
State Ex Rel. Guste v. Board of Highways 275 So. 2d 207 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
"In a later case, State v. Standard Oil Co. [ ], 113 So.
Jones v. Employers Liability Assurance Corp. 182 So. 2d 534 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
Walker v. Jim Austin Motor Company 162 So. 2d 135 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
In this connection, , 113 So.
Mitchel v. Board of Commissioners 161 So. 2d 384 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1964
Cockerham v. Aime 110 So. 2d 238 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
In this connection, , 113 So.
Griffin v. Bank of Abbeville & Trust Co. 88 So. 2d 231 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
29 , upon rehearing at page 34, the Supreme Court stated: “It is an established rule of law in our jurisprudence that ‘Either party is always permitted, in a suit between the parties to a contract, to correct any error in the instrument purporting to evidence the contract, so as to' make it express truly and correctly the intention of the parties.’ ( , 113 So.
Southwest Gas Producing Co. v. Hattie Brothers 88 So. 2d 649 La. 1956
34 ] we held: “It is an established rule of law in our jurisprudence that ‘Either party is always permitted, in a suit between the parties to a contract, to correct any error in the instrument purporting to evidence the contract, so as to make it express truly and correctly the intention of the parties,’ ( , 113 So.
State v. Lea 84 So. 2d 169 La. 1955
State v. Aucoin 20 So. 2d 136 La. 1944
State v. Texas Co. 17 So. 2d 569 La. 1944
State v. Texas Co. 17 So. 2d 569 La. 1944
State Ex Rel. Jones v. Doucet 14 So. 2d 622 La. 1943
Moreover, there was decided in 1927, since the adoption of the referred to constitutional provision, , 113 So.
In Re Meraux 12 So. 2d 798 La. 1943
Fair v. Williams 175 So. 631 La. 1937
Nor do the cited cases apply to the reformation of errors in conventional sales, since it is well settled that: “Either party is always permitted, in a suit between the parties to a contract, to correct any error in the instrument purporting to evidence the contract, so as to make it express truly and correctly the intention of the parties.” , 113 So.
Crowell & Spencer Lumber Co. v. Hawkins 174 So. 151 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
Miami Corporation v. State 173 So. 315 La. 1936
Murff v. Louisiana Highway Commission 140 So. 863 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
Saint v. Allen 134 So. 246 La. 1931
In the majority opinion it is said, speaking of the highway eonjmission: “In a general sense, in its relations to the state, it is not dissimilar to levee districts, which are bodies corporate, created for the purpose of constructing and maintaining levees, which are duties, devolving primarily upon the state.” As pointed out, , 113 So.
Matassa v. Cortese 132 So. 139 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
Board of Levee Com'rs v. Whitney Trust & Savings Bank 129 So. 658 La. 1930
357 , , the expression used in State ex rel.
Board of Com'rs of Caddo Levee Dist. v. Pure Oil Co. 120 So. 380 La. 1929
The material facts set forth in the state’s intervention are fully stated, or practically so, , 113 So.
In Re Borie 118 So. 45 La. 1928
Board of Com'rs of Tensas Basin Levee Dist. v. Hardtner 114 So. 494 La. 1927
ansferring of land from the land department of the state to one of the levee boards, pursuant to the legislative land grant, was not such a disposition of the state's land as is contemplated in the provisions of the second section of article 4 of the Constitution, cannot be reconciled with all that was said afterwards in the case entitled State v. Standard Oil Co. et al. (No. 27848) ante, p. 334, .