Cited by
Opinions in Louisiana that cite Weber v. H. G. Hill Stores, Inc., 29 So. 2d 33.
-
Peironnet v. Matador Resources Co.
103 So. 3d 445
La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
Hill Stores, Inc., , (1946), make an inaccurate assessment of the partial rescission occurring within certain reformation actions such as the present.
-
Kizer v. Lilly
471 So. 2d 716
La. 1985
Hill Stores Co., , (1946).
-
Karmgard v. SOUTHLAND MORTG. & TITLE CO.
341 So. 2d 1109
La. 1977
Weber v. H. G. Hill Stores, Inc., , (1946); Rougeau v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., La.App., (1972); Humble Oil and Refining Co. v. Chappuis, La.App., (1970).
-
Starns v. Ducote
254 So. 2d 301
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
1st Cir., 1967); Weber v. H. G. Hill *303 Stores, Inc., , (1946); (La.App.
-
O'NIELL v. Sonnier
195 So. 2d 724
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
Weber v. H. G. Hill Stores, Inc., , (1946).
-
Evangeline Refining Co. v. Nunez
153 So. 2d 886
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
688 ; So.2d 33 ; Gross v. Brooks, La.App., ; L.S.A.-C.C.
- Keen v. Lirocchi 153 So. 2d 134 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
-
Carter Oil Company v. King
134 So. 2d 89
La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1961
215 , ; Weber v. H. G. Hill Stores, Inc., 1946, , ; and Southwest Gas Producing Company, Inc., et al. v. Hattie Brothers et al., 1956, 230 La.
-
Great Sweet Grass Oils Co. v. Kroy-American Oils, Inc.
129 So. 2d 591
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
Weber v. H. G. Hill Stores Co., 1946, So.2d 33 .
-
Hall v. Hall
127 So. 2d 347
La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1961
Weber v. H. G. Hill Stores, Inc., , ; Sladovich v. Glaser, 150 La.
-
Zemurray v. Boe
105 So. 2d 243
La. 1958
Weber v. H. G. Hill Stores, Inc., So.2d 33 ; Standard Oil Co. of Louisiana v. Futral, 204 La.
-
Oliver v. Shreveport Municipal Fire & Police Civil Service Board
88 So. 2d 405
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
Crescent Cigar & Tobacco Co. v. Mire, supra; Thompson v. General Accident Fire & Life Assur.
-
Arata v. Orleans Capitol Stores, Inc.
55 So. 2d 239
La. 1951
In the comparatively recent case of Weber v. H. G. Hill Stores, Inc., , , when overruling an exception of no cause of action, we observed: “These allegations are, in our opinion, sufficient to constitute a cause of action, However, after considering the entire petition, even if in our minds there should exist any final doubt as to whether the exception should be sustaine