Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Foster & Glassell Co. v. Harrison, 138 So. 99.

21 citing documents.

Jeffers v. Hansen 440 So. 2d 825 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
1st Cir.1968); Foster & , 138 So.
Francis v. Lake Charles American Press 265 So. 2d 206 La. 1972
834 , (1943); Foster & , 138 So.
Langlois v. Southern Timber, Inc. of Woodville 256 So. 2d 320 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
In the McClellan case, the Court said that this expression could not “mean anything else but paying the judgment or complying with the order.” See, also concurring opinion of O’Niell, C. J., in Foster & , 138 So.
Glasper v. Wright Root Beer Co. 216 So. 2d 586 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
Mitchell v. Morgan Roofing Co. 118 So. 2d 492 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
The contention of the defendant, in his motion to dismiss the appeal was recently decided by us against defendant’s position in Washington v. Independence Oak Flooring Company, La.App., , where we stated: “Since Foster & , 138 So.
Morgan City Co. v. Guarisco 116 So. 2d 864 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
564 , 565; Foster & Glassell Company, , 138 So.
Succession of Franz 116 So. 2d 267 La. 1959
834 , ; Foster & , 138 So.
Washington v. Independence Oak Flooring Co. 114 So. 2d 599 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
Since Foster & , 138 So.
Rice v. Traders & General Insurance Company 114 So. 2d 92 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
Earlier jurisprudence to such effect was, however, specifically overruled by our Supreme Court in Foster & , 138 So.
Trimble v. Employers Mut. Casualty Co 32 So. 2d 479 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1947
This matter was finally settled by the Supreme Court in the *Page 480 case of Foster Glassell Co., Limited, v. Harrison et al., , 138 So.
Meyer v. McClellan 26 So. 2d 373 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1946
See concurring opinion of O'Niell, C. J., , 138 So.
State Ex Rel. Parish of Plaquemines v. Baynard 16 So. 2d 451 La. 1943
* * Later, in Foster & Glassell Company, Ltd., v. Harrison et al., , 138 So.
Sanderson v. Frost 3 So. 2d 626 La. 1941
184 ) and, although there are cases to the contrary, this question was set at rest by this court in the case of Foster & , 138 So.
Lacaze v. Kelsoe 185 So. 676 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
Blanchard v. Donaldsonville Motors Co. 176 So. 669 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
Foster & Glassell Co., Ltd., v. Harrison et al., , 138 So.
Merrill v. Louisiana Materials Co. 174 So. 349 La. 1937
Whatever merit there might be in the defendants’ argument with reference to this controversial question upon which the later decisions differ with earlier jurisprudence, it is sufficient to say that this Court set at rest this issue in the case of Foster & , 138 So.
Alengi v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. 162 So. 218 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
455 ; Foster & , 138 So.
Overruled Standard Oil Co. v. Smith 153 So. 334 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
551 , , the motion is overruled.
State v. Strother 154 So. 22 La. 1934
In view of the decisions in Foster & , 138 So.
Potter v. Robin & Cherry Shows, Inc. 141 So. 474 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
This question was discussed at length in the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Foster & Glassell Co., Ltd., v. Harrison et al., reported in .
Barcelo v. Barcelo 139 So. 765 La. 1932
The issue here involved is identical with that raised and decided in the ease of Foster & Glassell Co., , 138 So.