Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Termini v. McCormick, 23 So. 2d 52.

32 citing documents.

Travis Lee Stevens v. Darren Keith Bruce La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
344, So.2d 52 and Bartholomew v. Impastato, La.App.
Stevens v. Bruce 878 So. 2d 734 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
344 , [(1945)]; , [(1945)] and Bartholomew v. Impastato, La.App., [(1943)].
Powell v. Dorris 814 So. 2d 763 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
344 , ; , and Bartholomew v. Impastato, La.App., .
Moore v. Cameron Parish School Bd. 511 So. 2d 62 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
Alexander & Alexander, Inc. v. STATE EX REL. DIV. OF ADMIN. 486 So. 2d 95 La. 1986
Outdoor Electric Advertising v. Saurage, 207 La.344, ; Termini v. McCormick, 208 La.221, and Bartholomew v. Impastato, La.App., .
Crawford v. Williber 413 So. 2d 302 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Curry v. Iberville Parish Sheriff's Office 378 So. 2d 159 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
Parks v. Winnfield Life Insurance Company 336 So. 2d 1021 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
Comet Drilling Co. v. Tri-State Oil Tool Industries, Inc. 337 So. 2d 567 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
Small v. Wabnig 305 So. 2d 710 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
In this regard, , (1945) sustaining dismissal of plaintiff’s petition for failure to state a cause of action in a suit brought by a shareholder, the court observing that: “ .
Hargroder v. Columbia Gulf Transmission Co. 290 So. 2d 874 La. 1974
344 , ; , and Bartholomew v. Impastato, La.App., .
Invest, Incorporated v. State 247 So. 2d 175 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
Noel v. Noel 244 So. 2d 73 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
Patrick v. Patrick 241 So. 2d 541 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
Langley v. Copolymer Rubber & Chemical Corp. 233 So. 2d 353 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
Bielkiewicz v. Rudisill 201 So. 2d 136 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1967
Bourgeois v. Ducos 182 So. 2d 539 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
Wheeler v. Rodriguez, 13 La.App.
Carroll Insurance Agency v. Brewster 176 So. 2d 808 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
Barr v. Freeman 175 So. 2d 649 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1965
344 , ; , and Bartholomew v. Impastato, La.App., .
Cattle Farms, Inc. v. Abercrombie 155 So. 2d 426 La. 1963
Georgia Pacific Corp. v. B.G.M. Builders 154 So. 2d 78 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
344 , ; , and Bartholomew v. Impastato, La.App., .
Clark v. Physicians and Surgeons Hospital, Inc. 131 So. 2d 144 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1961
1 Cir., 1945, ; Termini v. McCormick, 1945, , ; Brooks v. Smith, La.App.
Guenard v. Key 131 So. 2d 108 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
Termini v. McCormick, supra [ , ], Ritsch Alluvial Land Co. v. Adema, 211 La.
Clark v. Town of Mandeville 105 So. 2d 313 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
344 , ; , and Bartholomew v. Impastato, La.
Johnston v. City of New Orleans 101 So. 2d 206 La. 1958
344 , ; , ; Roy O. Martin Lumber Co. v. Saint Denis Securities Co., 225 La.
Richard v. National Surety Corporation 99 So. 2d 831 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
344 , ; , and Bartholomew v. Impastato, La.App., .
Wischer v. Madison Realty Company 92 So. 2d 589 La. 1956
344 , ; , and Bartholomew v. Impastato, La.App., .
Succession of Kippers 91 So. 2d 346 La. 1956
Article 15 of the Code of Practice provides : “An action can only be brought by one having a real and actual interest which he pursues, but as soon as that interest arises, he may bring his action.” *289 , , we declared that if a plaintiff has an actual interest in the outcome of a case, then he has a right of action.
Leteff v. Maryland Casualty Co. 82 So. 2d 80 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
344 , ; , and Bartholomew v. Impastato, La.App., .
Roy O. Martin Lumber Co. v. Saint Denis Securities Co. 72 So. 2d 257 La. 1954
344 , ; , and Bartholomew v. Impastato, La.App., .
Star Shoe Co. v. Hendricks 45 So. 2d 428 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1950
23 So.2d page 52, 55, which was an action to set aside a judgment, Justice Hamiter as the organ of the Supreme Court made the following statement: “Of course, a court may order the vacating of a judgment where a person having the required interest alleges and proves sufficient grounds therefor, the power in thi-s re
Brooks v. Smith 35 So. 2d 613 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1948
[3] -227, , 54, clearly draws the distinction between the nature and the function of an exception of no cause of action and an exception of no right of action.