DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Albert Pick & Co. v. Stringer, 129 So. 731.

13 citing documents.

  • HCNO SERVICES v. Secure Computing Systems 693 So. 2d 835 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
    Albert Pick & , 129 So.
  • Central Progressive Bank v. Bradley 496 So. 2d 525 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    Official Revision Comment (f) for Article 1092 provides as follows: (f) The third paragraph of this article overrules the harsh and technical rule of Albert Pick & , 129 So.
  • Budd Const. Co., Inc. v. City of Alexandria 401 So. 2d 1070 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
    723 (2 Cir. 1931); Albert Pick & So.
  • Muller v. Buckley 143 So. 2d 231 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
    6 , and Albert Pick & , 129 So.
  • Watkins v. Abshire 108 So. 2d 666 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
    Article 304 of the Code of Practice; LSA-Revised Statutes 13:4062-13:4071; Albert Pick & , 129 So.
  • Cryer v. Cryer 70 So. 2d 747 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
    The controlling law on whether or not damages can be recovered for the dissolution of a temporary restraining order is found in the cases of Albert Pick & , 129 So.
  • Building & Construction Trades Council of Lake Charles, & Vicinity v. Gasoline Plant Const. Corp. 54 So. 2d 101 La. 1951
    True, in Albert Pick & , 129 So.
  • Cryer v. Cryer 44 So. 2d 517 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1950
    Usually the party who is seeking to dissolve a temporary restraining order or injunction does seek damages in his motion but the Court, when rendering its decision on the motion, merely reserves the right to plaintiff to recover damages- for the wrongful issuance of the injunction or restraining order, , 129 So.
  • Vidal v. Sterlington Gas Corporation 161 So. 6 La. 1935
    The first question presented is answered in the affirmative by our decision in Albert Pick & , 129 So.
  • Freeland v. Carmouche 148 So. 658 La. 1933
    It is true that this court held, in Albert Pick & , 129 So.
  • Richards v. Roudilion 140 So. 274 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
    139, , the Supreme Court said: “Restraining orders granted upon the furnishing of bond have, under the provisions of Act No. 29 of 1924, the same temporary force and effect as preliminary injunctions.
  • Eddy v. Weathers 134 So. 259 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
    They cannot be permitted to attack the authenticity of the mortgage, which is the basis of the foreclosure proceedings, and, at the same time, claim the proceeds of the sale.” We also find that the Supreme Court has discussed this identical question in *637 Albert Pick & , 129 So.
  • Valley Securities Co. v. De Roussel 133 So. 405 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
    In the case of Albert Pick & , 129 So.