Womack v. Sternberg
Also decided on this docket: La., May 27, 1964 164 So. 2d 359
Womack v. Sternberg, 172 So. 2d 683 (La. 1965).
Cited by
- Harris v. Poche 930 So. 2d 165 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
- Cousins v. Realty Ventures, Inc. 844 So. 2d 860 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
- Amoco Production Co. v. Texaco, Inc. 838 So. 2d 821 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
- Dorsett v. Johnson 786 So. 2d 897 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
- Simon v. Arnold 727 So. 2d 699 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
- American Lung Ass'n v. State Mineral Bd. 507 So. 2d 184 La. 1987
- Lockhart v. Sutton 503 So. 2d 1046 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
- Langendorf v. Administrators of Tulane Ed. Fund 361 So. 2d 905 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
- Harelson v. Parish of East Baton Rouge 272 So. 2d 382 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
- Eanes v. McKnight 251 So. 2d 491 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
- St. Cyr v. Bryant 203 So. 2d 834 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1967
Opinion text
HAMLIN, Justice (dissenting): This case involves exceptional circumstances, and no case cited in the majority opinion nor in the dissenting opinion has the same or a similar situation involved. I have taken the following factors into consideration: 1. The prices for the houses set out in the agreement are firm prices; 2. The value of the mortgage paper is a firm value; 3. The trial court, who saw and heard the witnesses and noted their demeanor on the stand, found bad faith on the part of Sternberg; 4. The majority opinion merely entertains “grave doubt” as to the trial judge’s resolution that Sternberg was • in bad faith. I believe that, in view of the exceptional circumstances of this case, the result reached by the Court of Appeal is correct. I respectfully dissent.