DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Harrell v. Stumberg, 57 So. 2d 692.

20 citing documents.

  • Brandner v. Staf-Rath, L.L.C. 64 So. 3d 812 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
  • Pittman v. Pomeroy 552 So. 2d 983 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
    811 , (1952), the Supreme Court held that the time within which a real estate closing must take place, which was provided in the written agreement, cannot be extended by estoppel.
  • Jones v. Hospital Corp. of America 516 So. 2d 1175 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
  • De Francesch v. Cella 367 So. 2d 78 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
  • Burk Development Company, Inc. v. Guillory 335 So. 2d 512 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
  • Fortenberry v. Decay 279 So. 2d 725 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
  • Wells v. Spears 255 So. 2d 215 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
  • Alley v. New Homes Promotion, Inc. 247 So. 2d 218 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1971
  • Thompson v. Bullock 236 So. 2d 892 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1970
    811 , ; Hoth v. Schmidt, 220 La.
  • Alexander v. Bates 192 So. 2d 186 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
    811 , .” The law is also quite clear that a donation must be made by authentic act.
  • Ezell v. Loucks 167 So. 2d 452 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
    811 , , wherein the Supreme Court said: “The contract to purchase and sell the real estate specifically provides that title must be passed within thirty days.
  • Miller v. Smith 151 So. 2d 83 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
    811 , the defendant gave a contract to sell certain property within 30 days.
  • Monk v. Monk 144 So. 2d 384 La. 1962
  • Wiggs v. Warren Realty Co. 106 So. 2d 478 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
    811 , ; Waterman v. Tidewater Associated Oil Co., 213 La.
  • Zemurray v. Boe 105 So. 2d 243 La. 1958
    811 , , such *645 contentions find no support in the present record.
  • Reine v. Kirn 102 So. 2d 66 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
  • Everhardt v. Sighinolfi 95 So. 2d 632 La. 1957
    811 , , also cited by this defendant, the demands of the respective purchasers were rejected for the reason that they (unlike this plaintiff) were not ready, willing and able to take title within the time fixed in the contracts.
  • Everhardt v. Sighinolfi 95 So. 2d 632 La. 1957
    811 , , also cited by this defendant, the demands of the respective purchasers were rejected for the, reason that they (unlike this plaintiff) were not ready, willing and able to take title within the time fixed in the contracts.
  • Koerber v. City of New Orleans 84 So. 2d 454 La. 1955
  • Shell Oil Co. v. Hogan 81 So. 2d 761 La. 1955