DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Feitel v. Feitel, 125 So. 280.

21 citing documents.

  • Deville v. Carmouche 450 So. 2d 24 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
  • Hunter v. Health & Social & Rehabilitation 372 So. 2d 577 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1979
  • Jacobs v. Jacobs 365 So. 2d 25 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
  • Succession of Leland 295 So. 2d 89 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
  • Devillier v. City of Opelousas 243 So. 2d 118 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1971
    Art. 2083 states: "Judgments maintaining exceptions of nonjoinder, and no cause of action, *121 , 125 So.
  • Cambre v. Gerald 219 So. 2d 572 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
  • Matte v. Continental Casualty Company 185 So. 2d 842 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1966
    an interlocutory decree: "`If the decree of the appellate court can restore the parties, without the loss of any right under the pleadings, to the identical position which they respectively occupied before the rendering of the interlocutory decree or order complained of, the injury to either party is clearly not irreparable, and therefore the right to appeal does not exist.'" , 125 So.
  • Ardoin v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance 150 So. 2d 792 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
    Counsel for appellant nevertheless contends that the judgment awarding compensation only through March 12th and remanding the case for further proceedings to determine further compensation liability beyond such date, cannot be a final judgment because it did not determine all the points in controversy between the parties, , and Bossier’s Heirs v. Hollingsworth & Jackson, 117 La.
  • Ellis v. Travelers Insurance Co. 123 So. 2d 780 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1961
    (Emphasis added) In Feitel v. Feitel, 1929, , 125 So.
  • Farmers Supply Co. v. Williams 107 So. 2d 544 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
    [339] 340.” Feitel v. Feitel, 1929, , 125 So.
  • Harris v. Primos 98 So. 2d 683 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
  • Stockstill v. Cotten 88 So. 2d 27 La. 1956
    718 (which followed the former), unlike the judgment here, “disposed, of the entire *211 merits of the cases, with the exception of an accounting to be done, which was to be done in furtherance, or in execution, of the judgments, forming the bases of the appeals.” , 125 So.
  • Breaux v. Laird 88 So. 2d 33 La. 1956
  • Oliphint v. Oliphint 54 So. 2d 18 La. 1951
  • Three Way Finance Co. v. McDonald 35 So. 2d 31 La. 1948
  • Rapides Cent. Ry. Co. v. Missouri Pac. R. Co. 22 So. 2d 200 La. 1945
  • Carmody v. Land 21 So. 2d 764 La. 1945
  • Reeves v. Barbe 9 So. 2d 426 La. 1942
    The court held that the signing of the judgment by the trial judge did not make it a final judgment, and that it was interlocutory* , 125 So.
  • Mann v. Edenborn 168 So. 759 La. 1936
  • Overruled Tuck v. Commercial Standard Ins. Co. of Dallas 164 So. 472 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
    538, 539, will not support a plea of res judicata, as not being decisive of all points in controversy, and fact that judgment was signed does not change it from interlocutory to final judgment.” , 125 So.
  • Kaufman v. H. G. Hill Stores, Inc. 159 So. 745 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935