DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Pettingill v. Hills, Inc., 6 So. 2d 660.

36 citing documents.

  • Jarrott v. Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners 19 So. 3d 526 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
  • Cooley v. Merriman 590 So. 2d 718 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
  • St. Charles Parish School Bd. v. GAF Corp. 512 So. 2d 1165 La. 1987
    1077 , (1944); Pettingill v. Hills, Inc., , (1942); cert.
  • Sobolewski v. Brown 405 So. 2d 1254 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    407 , ; Pettingill v. Hills, Inc., , ; Sierra Club v. Louisiana Dept. of Wildlife, La.App., ; Cox v. Watts, La.App., ; Brown v. Town of Lake Providence, La.App., ; Blanchard v. City of Shreveport, La.App., ; Theus v. City of Minden, La.App., 127 So.
  • Bushnell v. Bushnell 378 So. 2d 602 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    As was stated in Pettingill v. Hills, Inc., , (1942): “.
  • State v. Guidry 364 So. 2d 589 La. 1978
    589 , ; Pettingill v. Hills, Inc., , ; In re Westwego Moss Co., 196 La.
  • Everett v. Goldman 359 So. 2d 1256 La. 1978
    Aucoin v. Dunn, supra ; Pettingill v. Hills, Inc., , (1942).
  • In re the Succession of Dunham 359 So. 2d 674 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
    356 , (1948) and Pettingill et al v. Hills, Inc., , (1942) both hold that when a sale has taken place and cannot be annulled on appeal, the appeal should be dismissed.
  • United Tchrs. of New Orleans v. Orleans Parish Sch. Bd. 355 So. 2d 899 La. 1978
  • Bradley & Braud, Inc. v. Canady 342 So. 2d 1184 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    959 , (1968), and cases cited therein; Pettingill v. Hills, Inc., , (1942), and cases cited therein.
  • Jackson v. D'Aubin 316 So. 2d 476 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
    In support of their motion, movers rely on the case of Pettingill et al. v. Hills, Inc., et al., , (1942).
  • McKnight v. Miller Builders & Developers, Inc. 297 So. 2d 477 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
    589 , ; Pettingill v. Hills, Inc., , ; In re Westwego Moss Co., 196 La.
  • Aucoin v. Dunn 233 So. 2d 530 La. 1970
    589 , ; Pettingill v. Hills, Inc., , ; In re Westwego Moss Co., 196 La.
  • Fayard v. Celestan 227 So. 2d 795 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
    356 , ; Pettingill v. Hills, Inc., , ; Unity In *797 dustrial Life Insurance Co. v. DeJoie, 197 La.
  • Lasseigne v. Martin 202 So. 2d 257 La. 1967
    607 , ; Pettingill v. Hills, Inc., , ; In Re Westwego Moss Co., 196 La.
  • Texas Pipe Line Company v. Stein 202 So. 2d 266 La. 1967
    607 , ; Pettingill v. Hills, Inc., , ; In Re Westwego Moss Co., 196 La.
  • Brown v. Town of Lake Providence 200 So. 2d 764 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1967
    589 , , which cited Pettingill v. Hills, Inc., , , and other authorities to the same effect.
  • Hibernia National Bank in New Orleans v. Mary 174 So. 2d 200 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
    356 , ; Pettingill v. Hills, Inc., , ; Unity Industrial Life Insurance Co. v. DeJoie, 197 La.
  • Trist v. Ravain 118 So. 2d 896 La. 1960
    * * * ” Pettingill v. Hills, Inc., , .
  • Morgan City Co. v. Guarisco 116 So. 2d 864 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
    128 ; Pettingill v. Hills, Inc., , ; Freret Civic Association v. Orleans Parish School Board, 223 La.
  • State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Sumrall 111 So. 2d 313 La. 1959
    Pettingill v. Hills, Inc., , ; State v. Mutual Investment Company, Inc., 214 La.
  • Guaranty Bank & Trust Co. v. Musselman 100 So. 2d 507 La. 1958
    In support of the motion to dismiss, ap-pellees cite and rely upon the following cases: Pettingill v. Hills, Inc., , ; State ex rel.
  • City of Lake Charles v. Nope 92 So. 2d 144 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
    “It is the function of appellate courts to render judgments that can be naade effective and not to give opinions on moot questions or abstract propositions from which no practical results can follow,” Pettingill v. Hills, Inc., , , at page 662.
  • Tullos v. Long 90 So. 2d 880 La. 1956
    269 , ; Pettingill v. Hills, Inc., , ; Pellegrin v. City of Gretna, 222 La.
  • Blanchard v. City of Shreveport 90 So. 2d 556 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
    128 ; Pettingill v. Hills, Inc., 1942, , ; Freret Civic Association v. Orleans Parish School Board, 1953, 223 La.
  • Stewart v. Martin 84 So. 2d 235 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
    The defendant herein relies further upon the case of Pettingill v. Hills, Inc., , , which involves a suit for partition among co-owners, one of whom took a devolutive appeal, since he was dissatisfied with the judgment ordering partition.
  • Haydel v. Frellsen 79 So. 2d 399 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1955
    The Supreme Court, in Pettingill v. Hills, Inc., , , said: “ ‘This principle is one of general application.
  • Navarre v. Lafayette Parish School Board 77 So. 2d 520 La. 1955
    128 ; Pettingill v. Hills, Inc., , ; Freret Civic Association v. Orleans Parish School Board, 223 La.
  • Hirt v. City of New Orleans 73 So. 2d 471 La. 1954
    In Pettingill v. Hills, Inc., , , we observed: “It is the function of appellate courts to render judgments that can be made effective and not to give opinions on moot questions or abstract propositions from which no practical results can follow.” See also Miller v. Molony, 157 La.
  • Fluker Farms, Inc. v. James 71 So. 2d 709 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
    See also Pettingill v. Hills, Inc., , and Levenson v. Chancellor, La.App., , both of which affirm this same principle.
  • Levenson v. Chancellor 68 So. 2d 116 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1953
    Hollingsworth v. Caldwell, 195 La.
  • State ex rel. Clement Betpouey, Jr. & Co. v. Jefferson Parish Waterworks Dist. No. Five 66 So. 2d 338 La. 1953
    128 ; Pettingill v. Hills, Inc., , and Freret Civic Association v. Orleans Parish School Board, 223 La.
  • Rathborne Lumber & Supply Co. v. Harding 56 So. 2d 164 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1952
    In Pettingill et al. v. Hills, Inc., et al., , , the Supreme Court said: “It is the function of appellate courts to render judgments that can be made effective and not to give opinions on moot questions or abstract propositions from which no practical results can follow.
  • Ripp v. Perrault 39 So. 2d 362 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1949
    The Supreme Court, in Pettingill v. Hills, Inc., , , 662, said: "This principle is one of general application.
  • State v. Mutual Inv. Co. 37 So. 2d 817 La. 1948
    813 ; Pettingill et al. v. Hills, Inc., et al, , .
  • State Ex Rel. Jones v. Slater 18 So. 2d 627 La. 1944
    Applicable to this matter in its present condition is the following well-considered expression found in Pettingill v. Hills, Inc., , , 662: “It is the function of appellate courts to render judgments that can be made effective and not to give opinions on moot questions or abstract propositions from which no practical results can follow.