DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Templet v. Babbitt, 5 So. 2d 13.

33 citing documents.

  • Sonnier v. Conner 998 So. 2d 344 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
  • Ridgedell v. Succession of Kuyrkendall 740 So. 2d 173 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    See Templet v. Babbitt, 1941, , .
  • GNC Ltd. Partnership v. Dooley 657 So. 2d 255 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
    Further, although a party may not attack an authentic act of sale on the ground that no consideration was given for it if the act itself recites that consideration was given, , (1941), parol evidence may be admissible to prove failure of consideration, (La.App.
  • Barnco Intern., Inc. v. Arkla, Inc. 628 So. 2d 162 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
    760 , (1943); , (1941); and Nicol v. Jacoby, 157 La.
  • Durham v. Evans 377 So. 2d 423 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1979
    4th Cir., 1966); , (1941).
  • J. P. Messina Contractors, Inc. v. Cortez Construction Corp. 372 So. 2d 799 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
  • Miles v. Miles 328 So. 2d 394 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
    Johnson v. Johnson, 191 La.
  • Comeaux v. Noel 251 So. 2d 94 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
    (1941); Robinson v. Britton, 137 La.
  • Union Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Grand Co. 239 So. 2d 395 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1970
    591 , ; , ; Hodge v. Hodge, 151 La.
  • Wise v. Johnson 229 So. 2d 197 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
    865 , (1956); Templet v. Babbitt, et al., , 5 * (1941); (La.App.
  • Mut v. Mut 222 So. 2d 100 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
    Templet v. Babbitt, et al., , ; Johnson v. Johnson, 191 La.
  • Camus v. Rittiner 209 So. 2d 155 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
    Art. 2276 states: “Neither shall parol evidence be admitted against or beyond what is contained in the acts, nor on what may have been said before, or at the time of making them, or since.” , , at p. 15: “This court has repeatedly held that the recitals of an authentic act cannot be varied or contradicted by parol testimony; that, when a transfer of real property is evidenced by an authentic act which definitely and clearly recites that a certain specified consideration was given and received
  • Johnson v. Campagna 200 So. 2d 150 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
    299 (1938); , (1941); Harang v. Smith, 229 La.
  • Elrod v. Le Ny 193 So. 2d 299 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1966
    Templet v. Babbitt, et al., , ; Johnson v. Johnson, 191 La.
  • Chenevert v. Lemoine 161 So. 2d 85 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1964
    Articles 2236, 2237 and 2276; , ; Johnson v. Johnson, 191 La.
  • Willis v. Gordon 143 So. 2d 798 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
    See Templet v. Babbitt, 1941, , .
  • Wimbush v. Jones 136 So. 2d 704 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
    (1941); Harang v. Smith, 229 La.
  • Distinguished Girard v. Donlon 127 So. 2d 761 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
    865 , ; , , and many cases therein cited).
  • Love v. Dedon 118 So. 2d 122 La. 1960
    contained in the acts, nor on what may have been said before, or at the time of making them, or since” (Article 2276, emphasis ours), in the absence of allegations or proof of fraud, or error, or force, or forgery, or the existence of a counter letter, unless it be in the opposing party’s answers under oath to interrogatories on facts and articles — , ; Gary v. Richardson, 35 La.Ann.
  • Harang v. Smith 87 So. 2d 10 La. 1956
    Robinson v. Britton, 137 La.
  • Sheeks v. McCain-Richards, Inc. 76 So. 2d 892 La. 1954
  • Angelette v. Hardie 70 So. 2d 196 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
    Allen v. Anderson, La.App.1952, ; Templet v. Babbitt, 1941, , .
  • Taylor v. Brown 66 So. 2d 578 La. 1953
  • McGee v. Finley 65 So. 2d 384 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1953
    See Templet v. Babbitt, 1941, , .
  • Allen v. Anderson 57 So. 2d 50 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1952
  • Overby v. Beach 55 So. 2d 873 La. 1951
    *881 , Baker v. Baker, 209 La.
  • Florida Molasses Co. v. Berger 55 So. 2d 771 La. 1951
    De Naupassant v. Clayton, 214 La.
  • Florida Molasses Co. v. Berger 55 So. 2d 771 La. 1951
    De Naupassant v. Clayton, 214 La.
  • Breaux v. Breaux 51 So. 2d 73 La. 1951
  • Taylor v. Turner 45 So. 2d 107 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1950
    70S; , ; Lewis et al., v. King, et al., 157 La.
  • Jones v. Williams 39 So. 2d 746 La. 1949
    305, 306 , it was said: “Two demands that would be inconsistent if both were insisted upon are 'not at all inconsistent when made alternatively; that is, when the demand urged secondly is made only on the condition tha,t the demand first made should not be granted.” ,.
  • De Maupassant v. Clayton 38 So. 2d 791 La. 1949
  • Jones v. Jones 36 So. 2d 635 La. 1948