Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Parks v. Hall, 179 So. 868.

18 citing documents.

Adams v. Ross 300 So. 2d 192 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
The Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, followed the holding of Edward Bros. v. Berner, supra, (reversed by the Supreme Court on other grounds, see 189 La.
Hanover Insurance Co. v. Caruso-Simoneaux Agency, Inc. 249 So. 2d 322 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
Rancatore v. Evans 182 So. 2d 102 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1966
The same conclusion was reached by the Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit in Parks v. Hall, 1937, .
Richardson v. Joseph 165 So. 2d 321 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
May v. Yellow Cab Co., Inc., supra; Parks v. Hall et al., La.App.2d Cir., 1937, (writ granted); Middleton et al. v. Humble, La.App.2d Cir., 1937, 172 So.
Harding v. Christiana 103 So. 2d 301 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
James v. J. S. Williams & Son, supra; Parks v. Hall, La.App.1937, , subsequent proceedings on another point, 1938, 189 La.
Yarborough v. Bogalusa Steam Laundry, Inc. 74 So. 2d 344 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
Parks v. Hall, La.App., , also comments on Act No. 115 of 1934, Sec.
Switzerland General Ins. v. Roe 73 So. 2d 501 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
ll as against the other defendant: “ * * * Under such circumstances it was not proper to permit one defendant called by plaintiff under the-statute to give testimony adversely affecting the other defendant; or,, rather, it was not proper to consider-such testimony as against the other defendant.” The same conclusion was reached by the-Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit in Parks v. Hall, 1937, .
Waits v. Indemnity Ins. Co. of North America 40 So. 2d 746 La. 1949
191 , with the desion in which I disagree for the reasons set forth in an opinion that I wrote, in considering such case, while a member of the Court of Appeal of the Second Circuit, La.App., .
Warren v. Globe Indemnity Co. 30 So. 2d 346 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1947
Wilson v. Farnsworth 4 So. 2d 247 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
The trial court's judgment for the plaintiff was reversed by the Court of Appeal, , and the Supreme Court, in turn, reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal, holding that the permission to take the automobile accorded to the chauffeur in the first instance, irrespective of the use to which the chauffeur put the car while in his possession, was "permission of the assured" within the meaning and
Haeuser v. &198tna Casualty Surety Co. 187 So. 684 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
It was appealed to the Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit ( ) and that Court, with one of the judges dissenting, reversed the judgment of the district court and dismissed the insurer.
Schwartz Supply Co. v. Breen 184 So. 228 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1938
The statute does not extend the right and privilege of a litigant to cross-examine one defendant as against his co-defendant.” , the Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit was confronted with the question of whether or not the present statute permitted one co-defendant to be placed on the stand to give testimony against the other co-defendant, where their interests were not identical.
Parks v. Hall 182 So. 347 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1938
Parks v. Hall 181 So. 191 La. 1938
Matheny v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 181 So. 647 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1938
on the docket of this court, we had occasion to and did elaborately treat this question.
Brown v. Indemnity Ins. Co. of North America 178 So. 768 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1938
originally decided by this court on June 2, 1937, and reaffirmed on rehearing January 3, 1938.
Parks v. Hall 179 So. 877 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
this day decided by us, the judgment appealed from, in so far as the defendants M. L. Gans and Phoenix Indemnity Company are concerned, is set aside' and reversed, and plaintiff’s suit is dismissed at his cost in both courts.
Carbons Consolidated, Inc. v. Hall 179 So. 878 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
this day decided by us, the judgment appealed from, in so far as the defendants M. L. Gans and Phoenix Indemnity Company are concerned, is set aside and reversed, and plaintiff’s suit is dismissed at its cost in both courts.