Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Young v. Glynn, 131 So. 51.

31 citing documents.

Mongrue v. STATE FARM MUT. AUTO., ETC. 396 So. 2d 466 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
Collier v. Administrator, Succession of Blevins 136 So. 2d 774 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
Wascom v. Miller 101 So. 2d 744 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
Fontenot v. Goldenstern Pipe & Supply Co. 50 So. 2d 484 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1951
Neyland v. Maryland Casualty Co. 28 So. 2d 351 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1946
Stoufflet v. Duplantis 23 So. 2d 41 La. 1945
Rev.Civ.Code, art. 3071.” , 131 So.
Scott v. Caddo Parish School Board 6 So. 2d 806 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
277 ]; and Young v. Glynn [ ] 131 So.
McCastle v. Architectural Stone Co. 4 So. 2d 120 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
Puchner v. Employers' Liability Assur. Corp. 5 So. 2d 288 La. 1941
White v. Osterland & Knight Timber Co. 200 So. 674 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
Eaglin v. Southern Kraft Corporation 200 So. 63 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1940
McDaniel v. Great Southern Lumber Co. 197 So. 812 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1940
Forrestal v. McCray Refrigerator Sales Corp. 196 So. 516 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1940
Weaver v. Mutual Building & Homestead Ass'n 195 So. 384 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1940
Spears v. St. Charles Dairy, Inc. 194 So. 738 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1940
Nothing would be more prejudicial to the public interest than to permit the parties to withdraw on such a ground, since it is impossible to prove lesion and to determine in whose favor the lawsuit would have terminated.” See, also, , 131 So.
Walding v. Caldwell Bros. & Hart 193 So. 501 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1940
Young v. A. Marx & Son, Inc. 189 So. 167 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
Bradford v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co. 190 So. 210 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
Self v. Wyatt Lumber Co. 189 So. 327 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
Cagnolatti v. Legion Pants Co. 186 So. 377 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
Calhoun v. Louisiana Delta Hardwood Lumber Co. 182 So. 362 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1938
Davis v. Whatley 175 So. 422 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
Fluitt v. New Orleans, T. & M. Ry. Co. 174 So. 163 La. 1937
Reid v. J. P. Florio & Co. 172 So. 572 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
Davis-Wood Lumber Co. v. Farnsworth & Co. 171 So. 622 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
Horney v. Scott 171 So. 172 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
“We would therefore have no difficulty whatever in reaching the conclusion that the compromise herein entered into was binding, had said compromise) been entered into with the approval of a competent court.” A , 131 So.
Garrett v. Opelousas Cotton Oil Mill Co. 167 So. 854 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
Grace v. Eisenhuth 150 So. 398 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1933
If the lump sum settlement should be considered as a compromise, , 131 So.
Brewster v. J.C. Byram Co., Inc. 149 So. 118 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
483 ; Oglesby v. Attrill, 105 U. S. 605 , 26 L. Ed. 1186 .” , 131 So.
Faircloth v. Stearns-Roger Mfg. Co. 147 So. 368 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1933
The case is presented by counsel for defendant principally on the theory that the lump sum settlement was a , 131 So.
Zibilich v. Rittenberg 139 So. 309 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
372 , , in deciding in favor of the defendant, who pleaded compromise to a compensation suit, the Supreme Court said: * n ⅛ ciear that in every compromise there must be uncertainty and therefore error on the part of both parties as to what may be due, otherwise there would be no ground for compromise.” *312 Now, from th