Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Douglas v. Haro, 39 So. 2d 744.

33 citing documents.

Scranton v. Ashley Ann Energy, L.L.C. 91 So. 3d 1174 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
Cabral v. Cabral 543 So. 2d 952 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
(1949), which held that when a depositary brings an action against a third-party tortfeasor who has damaged the thing deposited, the owner is a necessary party.
Explained Waterbury v. Quebedeaux 497 So. 2d 382 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
32:521, was not a depositary, or in such status, that he would be required to protect the automobile in any fashion while it was in his possession.” Plaintiff would have us rely on the principles of a reversed on other grounds
Seeman v. Clearview Dodge Sales, Inc. 467 So. 2d 1332 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Giron v. Housing Auth. of City of Opelousas 393 So. 2d 1267 La. 1981
Patin v. Richard 291 So. 2d 879 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1974
Matte v. Continental Trailways, Inc. 278 So. 2d 60 La. 1973
Menard v. Associated Royal Crown Bottling Co. 249 So. 2d 363 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1971
789 , (1948); , (1949); Bailey v. Simon, 199 So.
Miller Car Washes, Inc. v. Crowe 245 So. 2d 485 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1971
For instance, , (1949), the court pointed out: "Under the provisions of our Civil Code, a deposit is defined as an act by which a person receives the property of another, binding himself to preserve it and return it in kind.
Woodard v. St. Cyr 201 So. 2d 205 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
Younger v. American Radiator & Standard San. Corp. 193 So. 2d 798 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1967
(reversing the former decision, and remanding for impleader of interested parties not previously joined).
Succession of Guidry v. Bank of Terrebonne & Trust Co. 193 So. 2d 543 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
789 , (1948); , (1949); Bailey v. Simon, 199 So.
LaFleur v. National Health & Life Insurance Co. 185 So. 2d 838 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1966
Hayes v. Muller 183 So. 2d 310 La. 1966
Breaux v. Pan American Petroleum Corporation 163 So. 2d 406 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1964
See also: , ; Lemoine v. Lacour, 213 La.
Holahan v. Phillips 145 So. 2d 35 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
Edward Levy Metals, Inc. v. New Orleans Public Belt Railroad 139 So. 2d 80 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
For this reason we are concerned with the question of when the railroad’s right and cause of action in tort arose against the third-party defendant, if *83 in fact it ever did arise, and we are of the opinion that the question is settled by, and that we must follow, (in the Court of Appeal) and , (in the Supreme Court).
Cargill, Inc. v. Great American Insurance Co. 126 So. 2d 368 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
The Standard Motor Car Company case cites and discusses a prior case of Douglas v. Haro, 1949, , .
Erath Sugar Co. v. Broussard 120 So. 2d 544 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
Cf., , ; Dupre v. Consolidated Underwriters, La.App.
Dupre v. Consolidated Underwriters 99 So. 2d 522 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
As the Supreme Court stated, "The modern trend of liberality in upholding substantive rights instead of subtle technicalities is to allow amendments to petitions that fail to state a cause of action due to insufficient allegations," , .
Standard Motor Car Co. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 97 So. 2d 435 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
The Orleans court's decision was, however, reversed by our Supreme Court, , , which opinion, in the words of the Supreme Court in a later decision, Holley v. Butler Furniture Co., 217 La.
Robinson v. Allen 88 So. 2d 64 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
See De Hart v. Continental Land & Fur Co., Inc., supra; Bologna Bros. v. Stephens, supra; , .
Lusco v. McNeese 86 So. 2d 226 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
Reynolds Metal Co. v. TL James & Co. 69 So. 2d 630 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
McGee v. Police Jury of Caddo Parish 66 So. 2d 408 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
109 , ; Pancoast v. Cooperative Cab Company, La.App., 1948, ; Douglas v. Haro, 1949, , 39 So.
Horn v. Skelly Oil Co. 60 So. 2d 65 La. 1952
112 , ; , and Jamison v. Superior Oil *634 Co., supra.
Jamison v. Superior Oil Co. 57 So. 2d 896 La. 1952
Jamison v. Superior Oil Co. 57 So. 2d 896 La. 1952
Chiasson v. Duplechain 56 So. 2d 615 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1952
112 , ; , ; Schaub v. O’Quin, 214 La.
Pachi v. White 54 So. 2d 875 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1951
to us. We are in full accord with the modern trend of liberality of the courts in upholding substantive rights instead of subtle technicalities so as to remand the case and permit amendments to petitions which fail to state a cause of action due to insufficient allegations and, in this connection, , , but unfortunately we are unable to conclude that this case would be analagous to or control the result of the instant case.
Doyle v. Thompson 50 So. 2d 505 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1951
Sanders v. Flowers 49 So. 2d 858 La. 1950
Holley v. Butler Furniture Co. 45 So. 2d 747 La. 1950
488 , , , plaintiff should have been permitted to amend his petilion, showing that he was acting for the use and benefit of his father under an oral mandate, particularly since he is supported in this by his father’s petition of intervention.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by