DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Bates v. Blitz, 17 So. 2d 816.

35 citing documents.

  • Hawthorne v. Kinder Corp. 513 So. 2d 509 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
  • Ostrander v. Parkland Villa Apartments 511 So. 2d 1293 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
  • Randall v. Feducia 499 So. 2d 458 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
    LIABILITY OF FEDUCIA In arguing Feducia's liability, , (1944), as authority that a tenant is entitled to enjoyment of not only the rented premises but also accessories such as entrances and exits, etc. While Bates is authority on this point, the case dealt with a slip and fall incident on a platform which had been placed in front of rented rooms on private
  • Mitchell v. Clark 448 So. 2d 681 La. 1984
  • Wexler v. Occhipinti 378 So. 2d 1073 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1979
    Sabin v. C. & L. Development Corp., (La.App.
  • Kelly v. Gilbert 341 So. 2d 632 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    (1944), the Supreme Court held a lessor responsible for vices or defects in the accessories to the building including the entrance, courtyard, stairways and approaches used in common with the other tenants.
  • Pollard v. Roberts 306 So. 2d 801 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1975
    (1944); Joyner v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, supra; Sabin v. C & L Development Corporation, Estes v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, 157 So.
  • Cacibauda v. Gaiennie 305 So. 2d 572 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1974
    [5] The cases cited by defendants: , (1944); and Perez v. Meraux, 201 La.
  • Belton v. State ex rel. Department of Public Safety, Drivers License Division 277 So. 2d 717 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
    (1944); Perez v. Meraux, 201 La.
  • In re Guccione 256 So. 2d 843 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
  • CHF Finance Discount "A" Co. v. Hall 249 So. 2d 217 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
    This is particularly true where no effort has been made to substantiate the statement of a witness whose credibility, although put in doubt, is susceptible of corroboration.” , (1944) and cases cited therein.
  • Joyner v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company 240 So. 2d 545 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1970
    (1944); Sabin v. C & L Development Corporation, Estes v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 157 So.
  • Tewis v. Zurich Insurance 233 So. 2d 357 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
  • Hughes v. Chrysler Corp. 216 So. 2d 636 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
    541 , ; , ; Bourgeois v. Bourgeois, 202 La.
  • Levy v. Fort 178 So. 2d 328 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
    Haynes v. Modern Woodmen of America, La.App., ; Oatis v. Delcuze, 226 La.
  • City of New Orleans v. Di Benedetto 144 So. 2d 558 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
  • Farmer v. Delta National Mutual Insurance 143 So. 2d 146 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
    Parnell v. City of Monroe, La.App., ; Marsalis v. La Salle, La.App., , and Pearlstine v. Mattes, 223 La.
  • Abbott & Barnes Credit Clothiers, Inc. v. Crane Clothing Co. 141 So. 2d 916 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
  • Sabin v. C & L DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 141 So. 2d 482 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
  • Malveaux v. Buller 135 So. 2d 368 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
    541 , , Chief Justice Fournet as organ for the Supreme Court stated: " , , that a person failing to call available witnesses possessing peculiar knowledge of facts that are essential to the proof of the case, or to produce more explicit, direct, and satisfactory concrete evidence than that relied on although able to, raises the inference or presumption that the testimony of
  • Pilcher v. Standard Accident & Insurance Co. 122 So. 2d 675 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
    498 , ; , ; Succession of Yeates, 213 La.
  • Martin v. T. L. James & Co. 112 So. 2d 86 La. 1959
    Succession of Yeates, 213 La.
  • Clevy v. O'MEARA 108 So. 2d 538 La. 1959
    541 , ; , ; Perez v. Meraux, 201 La.
  • Prince v. Liberty Mutual Insurance 106 So. 2d 736 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
    498 , ; , ; Succession of Yeates, 213 La.
  • Sollberger v. Walcott 101 So. 2d 483 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
  • Melancon v. Texas Company 89 So. 2d 135 La. 1956
    578 , ; , ; Succession of Yeates, 213 La.
  • Harper v. Rosenblath 79 So. 2d 863 La. 1955
    1057 ; , ; and Succession of Yeates, 213 La.
  • Wooten v. Thompson 69 So. 2d 557 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
    192, Section 187; and Ann.Cas.1914A, 915.” *564 , .
  • John v. John 69 So. 2d 737 La. 1953
    Arnold v. Sun Oil Co., 218 La.
  • Pearlstine v. Mattes 67 So. 2d 582 La. 1953
  • Stipe v. Simon 66 So. 2d 330 La. 1953
    King v. Atkins, supra; , ; and Succession of Yeates, 213 La.
  • Fried v. Bradley 52 So. 2d 247 La. 1951
    and authorities therein cited; Succession of Yeates, 213 La.
  • Olivier's Minor Children v. Olivier 40 So. 2d 803 La. 1949
  • Succession of Yeates 35 So. 2d 210 La. 1948
    Consequently, having failed in this respect, , , that a person failing to call available witnesses possessing peculiar knowledge of facts that are essential to the proof of the case, or to produce more explicit, direct, and satisfactory concrete evidence than that relied on although able to-, raises the inference ur presumption that the testimony of
  • Thiel v. Kern 34 So. 2d 296 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1948
    App., , affirmed , , decided in 1944, a plaintiff was allowed $1,000 in addition to incurred expenses for a fracture of the upper third of the left humerus, together with contusions and brush-burns.