DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Reid v. Monticello, 33 So. 2d 760.

19 citing documents.

  • Reed v. West Bros. of Eunice, L.A., Inc. 338 So. 2d 324 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    See Vogts v. Schwegmann [La.App.Orl., ] supra; Reid v. Monticello, [La.App., 1 Cir., ] supra; Williams v. Liberty Stores, 148 La.
  • Dunn v. EMPLOYERS'LIABILITY ASSURANCE CORPORATION 241 So. 2d 291 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
    1 Cir., (remanded to Court of Appeal on other grounds, 215 La.
  • Hawsey v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 211 So. 2d 417 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
  • Denton v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. 158 So. 2d 438 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
    The defendant relies upon the following authorities to support his contention that appellant should be cast for a breach of duty to warn Denton: Reid et al. v. Monticello et al., La.App., (1st Cir. 1948); Mahfouz v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, La.App., (2d Cir. 1959); Dyer v. Stephens Buick Company, La.App., (4th Cir. 1960); Hopper et ux.
  • Kramer v. Etie 155 So. 2d 478 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
    521 ; Reid v. Monticello, La.App., ; and Vogts v. Schwegmann, La.App., , which allowed recovery to a customer who tripped over an object in the aisle of a store.
  • Provost v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company 154 So. 2d 597 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1963
    1 Cir., (remanded to Court of Appeal on other grounds, 215 La.
  • Emmco Insurance Co. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. 138 So. 2d 822 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
    App., ; Reid v. Monticello, La.App., ; Thalheim v. Suhren, 18 La.App.
  • Lejeune v. HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNTY CO. 136 So. 2d 157 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
    233 ; Vogts v. Schwegmann, La.App., ; Reid v. Monticello, La.App., ; Bowers v. Lumberman's Mutual, La.App., .
  • Prosperity Co., Division of Ward Industries Corp. v. De George 123 So. 2d 802 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
    Corporation, Ltd., La.App., ; Reid v. Monticello, La.App., ; Hirsch v. Kendrick, La.App., .” See, also, Baxter v. Texas & Pacific Railway Company et al., La.App., 102 So.
  • Distinguished Sheridan v. Deshotel 121 So. 2d 305 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
    In the case of Reid v. Monticello, La.App., , the late Justice LeBlanc, then a respected member of the First Circuit, said: “There are several cases in which it is held that a plaintiff who had sued co-defendants and obtained judgment against only one who took an appeal, could not, by answering the appeal have the judgment reviewed as to the other defendan
  • Succession of Jackson 77 So. 2d 194 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
    Corporation, Ltd., La.App., ; Reid v. Monticello, La.App., ; Hirsch v. Kendrick, La.App., .
  • Monk v. Coal Operators Casualty Co. 76 So. 2d 82 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
    874 ; Maheu v. Employers Liability Assurance Corporation, Ltd., La.App., 1946, ; Reid v. Monticello, La.App., 1948, ; Hirsch v. Kendrick, La.App., 1950, ; Macaluso v. Herrin, La.App., 1951, .
  • Macaluso v. Herrin 51 So. 2d 125 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1951
    874 ; Maheu v. Employers Liability Assurance Corp., Ltd., La.App., ; Reid v. Monticello, La.App., ; Hirsch v. Kendrick, La.App., .
  • Little v. Smith 44 So. 2d 377 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1950
    With reference to their second contention, counsel cites the case of Reid v. Monticello, La.App., , in which Judge LeBlanc was the organ of the court and said: “ ‘In matters concerning the right of appeal in cases where there are co-appellees, it is a well settled proposition in our jurisprudence that the appellate court is powerless to revise, recast or amend the judgment appealed from, in so far as the co-a
  • Reid v. Monticello 44 So. 2d 509 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1950
    For full particulars -régarding the pleádings, the facts found by us, and the opinion rendered, .
  • Hirsch v. Kendrick 43 So. 2d 692 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1950
    874 ; Maheu v. Employers Liability Assurance Corporation, Ltd., et al., La.App., ; Reid v. Monticello, La.App., .
  • Reid v. Monticello 40 So. 2d 814 La. 1949
    any complain of the judgment on both grounds, namely that it decrees liability against them and that it also relieved their co-defendant of liability, yet this court is without power to entertain their complaint as to their co-defendant because as between them and their co-defendant, no issue w;as contested or controverted nor was any issue between them adjudicated by the judgment appealed from.” .
  • Spanja v. Thibodaux Boiler Works 37 So. 2d 615 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1948
    App., , which was decided long after Quatray v. Wicker, supra, our Brothers of the First Circuit held that one defendant sued solidarily had no right to appeal from a judgment dismissing the other defendant.
  • Jones v. Illinois Cent. R. Co. 35 So. 2d 33 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1948
    App., , 762, may be distinguished, we do not see the distinction, and find the reasoning in that opinion sound, and applicable here.