Di Carlo v. Laundry & Dry Cleaning Service
Di Carlo v. Laundry & Dry Cleaning Service, 152 So. 327 (La. 1933).
Cited by
Explained in 1
- Coulon v. Witco Corp. 848 So. 2d 135 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
- Outdoor Systems, Inc. v. Entergy Corp. 804 So. 2d 848 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
- Crump v. Sabine River Authority 737 So. 2d 720 La. 1999
- Stewart v. Parish of Jefferson 668 So. 2d 1292 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1996
- Bledsoe v. Willowdale Country Club 643 So. 2d 1302 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1994
- Bunge Corp. v. Gatx Corp. 557 So. 2d 1376 La. 1990
- South Central Bell Telephone Co. v. Texaco, Inc. 418 So. 2d 531 La. 1982
- Wilson v. Hartzman 373 So. 2d 204 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1979
- Derbofen v. TL James & Co., Inc. 355 So. 2d 963 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
- Craig v. Montelepre Realty Co. 211 So. 2d 627 La. 1968
- Hobson v. Walker 41 So. 2d 789 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1949
- Kellogg v. Mertens 30 So. 2d 777 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1947
Opinion text
On Application for Rehearing. PER CURIAM. Considering the application herein made by the defendant and the leave reserved to it by the lower court and affirmed by this court to apply for a modification of the injunction herein issued on repair or adjustment of its engines and generators, so as to make them operate without causing excessive and harmful vibrations in plaintiffs’ property, it is ordered that, on payment of the moneyed judgment herein with all interest and costs, the injunction herein be stayed for 90 days from date hereof and defendant allowed said 90 days in which to apply to the lower court for a modification thereof on showing to said court that its engines and generators have now been renewed, renovated, repaired, or adjusted so as to make them operate without causing excessive and harmful vibrations in plaintiffs’ property, provided, however, that in the meanwhile said engines and generators be not operated between the hours of 6 o’clock in the afternoon and 7 o’clock in the following forenoon. And with this modification a rehearing is refused.