DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Morehouse Ice Co. v. Tooke & Reynolds, 154 So. 402.

14 citing documents.

  • Wolfe v. Henderson Ford, Inc. 277 So. 2d 215 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1973
  • Tripod Boats, Inc. v. George Engine Co. 170 So. 2d 238 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1964
    850 , (1953); Morehouse Ice Co. v. Tooke & Reynolds, *243 (La.App.
  • Gabriel v. Jeansonne 162 So. 2d 798 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1964
    733 , ; Morehouse Ice Co. v. Tooke & Reynolds, La.App., ; McEachern v. Plauche Lumber & Construction Co., 220 La.
  • Pursell v. Kelly 139 So. 2d 12 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
    575 ; Foreman v. Jordan, La.App., ; Ruehmkorf v. McCartney, La.App., ; Johnson v. Hunter, La.App., ; Mattes v. Heintz, La.App., ; DiPietro v. LeBlanc, La.App., ; Bozemar v. McDonald, La.App., ; Morehouse Ice Co., Inc. v. Tooke & Reynolds, La.App., ; Matthews v. Rudy, 4 La.App.
  • Delta Equipment & Construction Co. v. Cook 142 So. 2d 427 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
    The jurisprudence of this state (except for Morehouse Ice Co. v. Tooke & Reynolds, La.App., and Britt v. Leaderbrand, La.App., , hereinafter discussed) appears well settled to the effect that in an action in quanti minoris the amount recoverable by the purchaser is the difference between the value of the thing sold in its defective condition and its value as warranted.
  • Stahl v. Sazer 141 So. 2d 441 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
    In support of this contention defendant cites Morehouse Ice Co., Inc. v. Tooke and Reynolds, La.App., .
  • Deshotel v. Higgins 109 So. 2d 805 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1959
    733 ], Morehouse Ice Co., Inc. v. Tooke & Reynolds, La.App., .’ See, also, Mattes v. Heintz, La.App., .” We are unable to determine from this record just what was the actual cost of having the sewerage connections made, since it seems that the total amount paid by the plaintiffs to their plumber may have included the cost of other items not necessarily a part of th
  • Madere v. Sharp 89 So. 2d 214 La. 1956
    775 ; the suit was for recovery of amounts expended in correcting defects in purchases retained in Morehouse Ice Co. v. Tooke & Reynolds, La.App., , and McEachern v. Plauche Lbr.
  • Rodriguez v. Hudson 79 So. 2d 578 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
    733 ], ; Morehouse Ice Co., Inc., v. Tooke & Reynolds, La.App., ."
  • Mattes v. Heintz 69 So. 2d 924 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
  • Wilfamco, Inc. v. Interstate Electric Co. 58 So. 2d 833 La. 1952
    575 ; Tuminello v. Mawby, La.Sup., ; Morehouse Ice Co., Inc., v. Tooke & Reynolds, La.App., .
  • McEachern v. Plauche Lumber & Construction Co. 57 So. 2d 405 La. 1952
    denied; Morehouse Ice Co. v. Tooke & Reynolds, La.App., .
  • Bozeman v. McDonald 40 So. 2d 517 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1949
    App., , this court said: "Whether the purchaser sues for a reduction of the price eo nomine, the measure of which is the difference in value of a sound and unsound article, or whether he sues for the amount necessarily expended by him to convert the unsound article into one of soundness, is a distinction without a diff
  • Shreveport Packing Co. v. Marrs 180 So. 220 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1938
    352 .” See, also, Morehouse Ice Co. v. Tooke & Reynolds, La.App., ; Curl v. Ruston State Bank, 104 La.