DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Neal v. Hall, 28 So. 2d 131.

15 citing documents.

  • Jones v. Jones 220 So. 3d 855 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2017
    A dismissal without prejudice, or non-suit, merely “restores matters to the status occupied before the suit and leaves the party free to again come into court with his complaint.” Id., (La.
  • City of Shreveport v. LA. HAYRIDE DEV. CO., LLC 996 So. 2d 418 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
    In other words, a dismissal without prejudice "restores matters to the status occupied before the suit was instituted and leaves the party free to again come into court with his complaint" (La.App.
  • Total Sulfide Services v. Secorp Indus. 685 So. 2d 514 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
    Neal v. Hall, La.App., .
  • Yeutter v. Lewis 334 So. 2d 728 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
    3rd Cir. 1963); (La.App.
  • LeBlanc v. Travelers Indemnity Co. 263 So. 2d 337 La. 1972
  • Mitchell v. Jackson 250 So. 2d 540 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
    Neal v. Hall, La.App., .
  • Devillier v. City of Opelousas 243 So. 2d 118 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1971
    Art. 2083 states: "Judgments maintaining exceptions of nonjoinder, and no cause of action, *121 Feitel v. Feitel, 169 La.
  • People of Living God v. Chantilly Corporation 207 So. 2d 752 La. 1968
    In support of its holding the Court of Appeal herein relied principally on the case of Neal v. Hall, La.App., (Second Circuit).
  • Adams v. Aetna Casualty Insurance 205 So. 2d 118 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
    And, in Neal v. Hall, La.App., (1946) the Court held that a dismissal of a suit as of non-suit restored the matter to the status occupied before the suit was instituted.
  • People of the Living God v. Chantilly Corp. 197 So. 2d 748 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
    wherein the court said: “Neither the merits of the exception nor the correctness of the court’s ruling thereon was brought up by the present appeal.
  • Washington v. Flenniken Construction Company 188 So. 2d 486 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1966
    2 Cir., , there is, as Flenniken points out, a line of cases which hold that, on an appeal from a dismissal because of noncompliance with an order to cure a dilatory exception, the merits of the interlocutory order requiring amendment will not be reviewed, but merely whether the trial court abused its procedural discretion by
  • Martin v. Garon 172 So. 2d 751 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
    3rd Cir. 1962); (La.App.
  • Vizier v. Howard 165 So. 2d 655 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
    See Neal v. Hall, La.App., ; La Fleur v. Dupuis, La.App., ; Bogan v. Byrom, La.App., .
  • Bogan v. Byrom 151 So. 2d 718 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1963
    2 Cir., ; La Fleur v. Dupuis, La.App.
  • La Fleur v. Dupuis 147 So. 2d 724 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1962
    Whether the merits of the exception or the correctness of the trial court's ruling thereon was brought up by the present appeal was considered in the case of Neal v. Hall, La.App., .