Cited by
Opinions in Louisiana that cite Hortman-Salmen Company v. White, 123 So. 715.
-
C & S Safety Systems, Inc. v. SSEM Corp.
843 So. 2d 447
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Disagreeing, the court reasoned: Under these circumstances, we think the holding of the Court in the case of Hortman-Salmen Company, , 123 So.
-
Southmark Corp. v. Ellis Millwork, Inc.
535 So. 2d 507
La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
4th Cir.1971); Hortman-Salmen Company, , 123 So.
-
FIRST WISCONSIN NAT. BANK OF MILWAUKEE v. Novem, Inc.
349 So. 2d 370
La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1977
Hortman-Salmen Co. v. White, 1929, , 123 So.
- Albert K. Newlin, Inc. v. Weingarten's Markets Realty Co. 253 So. 2d 594 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
-
Jeffer's Trust v. Justice
253 So. 2d 234
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
Hortman-Salmen Co., , 123 So.
- Chambers v. Zeigler 207 So. 2d 262 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
-
Louisiana Plumbing & Heating, Inc. v. Miranne & Harris, Inc.
181 So. 2d 261
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
The jurisprudence has established that the sixty-day period set forth in the statute begins to run on the date when the building is treated or considered as complete, (Cain v. Central Plumbing and Heating Company, La.App., ) even though subsequently minor repairs, corrections or additions to the work are performed ( , 123 So.
-
Romero & Sons Lumber Company v. Babineaux
151 So. 2d 714
La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1963
* * *" The jurisprudence has established that the sixty-day period set forth in the statute begins to run on the date when the building is treated or considered as complete, (Cain v. Central Plumbing & Heating Company, La.App., ) even though subsequently minor repairs, corrections or additions to the work are performed ( , 123 So.
-
Brown Brokerage Co. v. Greely Plumbing Co.
135 So. 2d 551
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
hen properly presented and recorded by him in accordance with the provisions of this Sub-part, create in his favor a privilege on the land and improvements which will prime the right of mortgagees or vendors.” (emphasis ours) The District Judge made the following cogent observations concerning the pertinent aspects of a leading case in point: “In the case of Hortman-Salman [Salmen] Co. v. White [ ], *554 123 So.
- Windham Woodwork & Supply Co v. Hopkins 122 So. 2d 106 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
-
Taylor Seidenbach, Inc. v. Healy
90 So. 2d 158
La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1956
In the case of Hortman-Salmen Co. v. White, 1929, , 123 So.
- Cain v. Central Plumbing and Heating Company 85 So. 2d 376 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
-
Schwartz Supply Co. v. Zimmerman
84 So. 2d 438
La. 1955
Hortman-Salmen Co., Inc., v. White, , 123 So.
- WM Bailey & Sons v. Western Geophysical Co. 66 So. 2d 424 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1953
-
Electric Contracting Co. v. Brown
39 So. 2d 100
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1949
Under these circumstances, we think the holding of the Court in the case of Hortman-Salmen Company, Inc., v. White, , 123 So.
-
Hicks v. Tate
7 So. 2d 737
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
In Hortman-Salmen Lumber Co., Inc., v. White, , 123 So.
-
General Lumber & Supply Co. v. McLellan
200 So. 501
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
In the case of Hortman-Salmen Co., Inc., v. White, , 123 So.
-
Weaks Supply Co. v. Gulf Refining Co.
180 So. 883
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1938
ng claim to be recorded within 60 days after time of last delivery of material or last service performed or labor done, curing of defects which may appear from time to time after building is considered and treated as completed is not deemed part of labor contemplated in fixing time, nor should material or services furnished for that purpose be so regarded.’ Hortman-Salmen Company, Inc., v. White, , 123 So.
-
H. R. Hayes Lumber Co. v. H. M. Jones Drilling Co.
148 So. 899
La. 1933
Section 12 of Act No. 298 of 1926; , 123 So.
- National Homestead Ass'n v. Graham 147 So. 348 La. 1933
-
Rex Electric Co. v. Glorioso
140 So. 236
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
Defendant relies on the cases of Hortman-Salmen Co., Inc., v. White, , 123 So.
- Northrop v. Guy 134 So. 738 La. 1931
-
Cox v. Rockhold
128 So. 702
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
In the case of Hortman-Salmen Co., Inc., v. White, , 123 So.