Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Palama v. Livaudais, 153 So. 691.

21 citing documents.

Jones v. United Resource Group 858 So. 2d 563 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Primeaux v. Hinds 350 So. 2d 1310 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
Southwest Sales and Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Delta Exp., Inc. 342 So. 2d 281 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
Schwegmann Bros. GS Mkts. v. Louisiana Milk Com'n 290 So. 2d 312 La. 1974
Employers Overload Co. v. EMPLOYERS OVERLOAD CO., NO, INC. 266 So. 2d 546 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1972
City of New Orleans v. Delta-By-Products, Inc. 177 So. 2d 395 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
Emmco Insurance v. Dickinson 144 So. 2d 607 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
Cusimano v. Sigur 143 So. 2d 239 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
Alphonse Mortgage Co. v. Saucier 138 So. 2d 849 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
Westside Transit Lines, Inc. v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. 135 So. 2d 278 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
Counsel for plaintiff and appellee has cited and quoted in his brief from these several of many cases on this subject: , 153 So.
City of New Orleans v. Langenstein 91 So. 2d 114 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
Harris v. Pierce 73 So. 2d 330 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
Ducasse v. Modica 69 So. 2d 358 La. 1953
Twiggs v. JOURNEYMEN BARBERS, ETC. 58 So. 2d 298 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1952
Brooks v. Chinn 52 So. 2d 583 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1951
Ridge Park v. Police Jury, Etc. 27 So. 2d 128 La. 1946
Nor can Article 303 have any application for “It is the approved rule that the granting or refusing of a preliminary injunction is merely an interlocutory judgment designed to preserve the existing status pending a trial of the issues on the merits of the case.” , 153 So.
Ruiz v. Alfons0 1 So. 2d 330 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1941
Noe v. Maestri 190 So. 590 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
Drew v. Town of Zwolle, Sabine Parish 171 So. 59 La. 1936
“It is the approved rule that the granting or refusing of a preliminary injunction is merely an interlocutory judgment designed to preserve the existing status pending a trial of the issues on the merits of the case, and therefore the question is one which is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge.” , 153 So.
Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Louisiana Public Service Commission 164 So. 786 La. 1935
Palama v. Livaudais 162 So. 765 La. 1935
See Palama v. Livaudais et al. (Roberts, Intervener), , 153 So.