DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Glassell, Taylor & Robinson v. John W. Harris Associates, Inc., 26 So. 2d 1.

21 citing documents.

  • Scott Green Properties, LLC and Scott Green v. R. Scott Ramsey, Jr., Edward Roe, Maple Bayou Hunting Club, … La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2025
  • Ragusa v. Burns 462 So. 2d 658 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    In Glassell, Taylor & Robinson v. John W. Harris Associates, Inc., , (1946), the Louisiana Supreme Court rejected a similar contention made by a subcontractor.
  • Orleans Onyx, Inc. v. Buchanan 428 So. 2d 841 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1983
    At page 339 citing Glassell, Taylor & , .
  • Tom Black & Associates, Inc. v. Thibaut Construction Co. 420 So. 2d 1150 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
  • South Central Bell Tel. Co. v. Traigle 367 So. 2d 1143 La. 1978
    " Glassell, Taylor & , (1946); see, 21 Loyola L.Rev.
  • Express Ready-Mix, Inc. v. Evans 266 So. 2d 257 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
    Louisiana Civil Code Article 14, though not defining “the owner” with particularity, provides the following general guideline: “The words of a law are generally to be understood in their most usual signification, without attending so much to the niceties of grammar rules as to the general and popular use of the words.” In Glassell, Taylor & , (1946), the Louisiana Supreme Court found that the intention of the lawmakers in adopting this legislation [R.S.
  • Pringle-Associated Mortgage Corporation v. Eanes 226 So. 2d 502 La. 1969
    234 ; Glassell, Taylor & Robinson v. John W. Harris Associates, Inc., , ; A. M. & J. C. Dupont, Inc. v. Boudreaux, La.App., 185 So.
  • Capital Bank & T. Co. v. Broussard Paint & Wall. Co. 198 So. 2d 204 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
    Glassell, Taylor & , , Officer v. Combre, La.App., 194 So.
  • Broadmoor Lumber Co. v. Liberto 162 So. 2d 800 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1964
    Co., 13 Orleans App. 5, and Glassell, Taylor & , , in support of his argument.
  • Martinolich v. Albert 143 So. 2d 745 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
    Public Works Act is sui generis, preempting the field of law on this subject, and therefore it alone provides the exclusive remedies for parties involved in public construction work.32 "32Glassell, Taylor & Robinson v. John W. Harris Associates, Inc., , (1946), so held with respect to the Private Works Act (R.S.
  • Fruge v. Muffoletto 137 So. 2d 336 La. 1962
    e sections throwing any light on other sections being correlated, the act is more comprehensive and is capable of a construction clearly within the intendment of the lawmakers that leads to no absurd consequences, without violence being done to the rule of interpretation that acts in derogation of common rights must be strictly construed.” Glassell, Taylor & , .
  • Johnson v. Sewerage District No. 2 of Parish of Caddo 120 So. 2d 262 La. 1960
    553 ; Glassell, Taylor and Robinson v. *857 John W. Harris Associates, , .
  • State v. Orleans Parish School Board 118 So. 2d 471 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
    37 ; Glassell, Taylor & Robinson v. John W. Harris Associates, Inc., , .
  • Melde Tile Roofing Co. v. Compact Homes, Inc. 92 So. 2d 735 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1957
    The Supreme Court in Glassell, Taylor & Robinson v. John W. Harris Associates, Inc., , , was concerned with the question whether one who .purchases property during the course of construction rendered himself .solidarity liable in personam with the contracting owner under'the provisions-of Act 298 .of 1926, as amended by Act 323 of .
  • Schwartz Supply Co. v. Zimmerman 84 So. 2d 438 La. 1955
    See Glassell, Taylor & Robinson v. John W. Harris Associates, Inc., , .
  • Roland v. American Casualty Co. 80 So. 2d 387 La. 1955
    2765 which provides : “The proprietor has a right to cancel at pleasure the bargain he has made, even in case the work has already been commenced, by paying the undertaker for the expense and labor already incurred, and such damages as the nature of the case may require.” (This article was held to be applicable to subcontractors in Glassell, Taylor and Robinson v. John W. Harris Associates, Inc., , .)
  • State ex rel. Henry v. 8-Mile Post Plumbing Supplies, Inc. 63 So. 2d 749 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1953
    9, are read section by section, “there would appear to be an hiatus therein, leading, in our opinion, to absurd consequences.” Glassell, Taylor & , .
  • Rathborne Lumber & Supply Co. v. Falgout 50 So. 2d 295 La. 1950
    234 ; Glassell, Taylor & Robinson v. John W. Harris Associates, Inc., , ; A. M. & J. C. Dupont, Inc. v. Boudreaux, La.App., 185 So.
  • Tanner v. Beverly Country Club, Inc. 47 So. 2d 905 La. 1950
    37 ; Glassell, Taylor & Robinson v. John W. Harris Associates, Inc., , , for in Section 6 it is provided: “That any violation of any judgment, interlocutory order or decree, injunction or restraining order issued in a cause under this act shall constitute a contempt of court; and the maintenance, or operation, of a nuisance as defined herein by a person, or persons, previous
  • Weber v. H. G. Hill Stores, Inc. 29 So. 2d 33 La. 1946
    333 , ; Glassell, Taylor & Robinson v. John W. Harris Associates, Inc., et al., , .
  • Standard Supply & Hardware Co. v. Humphrey Bros. 26 So. 2d 8 La. 1946