DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Stockbridge v. Martin, 110 So. 828.

31 citing documents.

  • Garrett v. Ernest 369 So. 2d 713 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    Appellants claim that the law does not require them to name in their suit, nor make service or notice upon, , 110 So.
  • Bagby v. Clause 251 So. 2d 172 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
  • Louisiana Power & Light Company v. Lasseigne 232 So. 2d 278 La. 1970
  • Heirs of Boagni v. Thornton 132 So. 2d 494 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
  • Cloud v. Cloud 127 So. 2d 560 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
    13:4438, as amended by Act No. 38 of 1960; , 110 So.
  • Morgan v. Kent 83 So. 2d 672 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
  • Osborne v. Mossler Acceptance Corporation 29 So. 2d 58 La. 1946
  • Burch v. Mathson 24 So. 2d 476 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1946
    This point has been time and again decided by this Court, , in which reference was made to what is regarded as the leading case, as decided by the Supreme Court, , 110 So.
  • Davis v. Davis 23 So. 2d 651 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1945
  • Varnell v. Babin 13 So. 2d 495 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1943
  • Cox v. Louisiana Department of Highways 11 So. 2d 409 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
  • Wren v. Brock 5 So. 2d 323 La. 1941
  • Riggs v. F. Strauss Son 2 So. 2d 501 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
  • Succession of Bickham 197 So. 924 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1940
  • Woodward v. Blair 197 So. 920 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1940
    We have reached this conclusion because of certain decisions of this court, and, more particularly, , 110 So.
  • Wilson v. Lee 196 So. 373 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1940
  • Johnson v. Chapman 183 So. 285 La. 1938
  • Twin City Motor Co. v. Pettit 177 So. 814 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
  • Johnson v. Chapman 179 So. 466 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
  • Sanders v. Wyatt 174 So. 161 La. 1937
    ' , at pages 605, 606, 110 So.
  • Sanders v. Wyatt 170 So. 519 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
  • Dorfer v. City of Natchitoches 160 So. 807 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
    601, 602, , it is held that in appeals to this court, the failure to file the record on time is prima facie the fault of the clerk of the district court and not imputable to the appellant.
  • Vinyard v. Stassi 156 So. 778 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
    691 , , has been taken into account.
  • Danna v. Yazoo M v. R. Co. 154 So. 365 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
    602 , , the court held that its rule, to the effect that it would be conclusively presumed that an appeal had been abandoned by appellant where he failed to file transcript in time, was not applicable in the Court of Appeal, notwithstanding article 7, § 27 of the Constitution, because, and for the reason, that the rules of
  • Vinyard v. Stassi 152 So. 161 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
    602 , , we copy from the syllabus: “Supreme Court rule that appeal is abandoned by failure of appellant to file transcript in time held not applicable in Court of Appeal, notwithstanding Const. 1921, art. 7, § 27, providing that rules regulating appeals be applied to Court of Appeal as far as applicable, such court having p
  • Morehouse Lumber & Building Material Co. v. Jacob 136 So. 106 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1931
    602 , ,- and likewise discussed by this court in the recent decision of Dupuy et al. v. Phillips et al., 14 La.
  • Wiggins v. Texas & New Orleans R. R. 135 So. 265 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1931
  • Dupuy v. Phillips 130 So. 855 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
    The Supreme Court in the case of Stock-bridge v. Martin, reported in , 110 So.
  • Carter v. Bolden 124 So. 562 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1929
    (Stockbridge vs. Martin, , 110 So.
  • Devereaux & Ashby v. Rochester 120 So. 658 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1929
    Stockbridge vs. Martin, , 110 So.
  • Bonura & Co. v. Payne 7 La. App. 754 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1927
    See Stockbridge vs. Martin et al, , 110 South.