Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Jeffries v. Estate of Pruitt, 599 So. 2d 306.

14 citing documents.

Williams v. PLACID REFINING COMPANY, LLC 962 So. 2d 1233 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
1st Cir.), writs denied, and (La.
Roussell v. St. Tammany Parish School Bd. 943 So. 2d 449 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
1st Cir.), writs denied, and
Temple v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation & Development 858 So. 2d 569 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
1 Cir.), writs denied, and (award of $30,000 was not found to be abusively low for spouse with a two-year marriage, one-year relationship prior to marriage, and no children from the marriage); (La.App.
Temple v. STATE EX REL. DOTD 858 So. 2d 569 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
1 Cir.), writs denied, and (award of $30,000 was not found to be abusively low for spouse with a two-year marriage, one-year relationship prior to marriage, and no children from the marriage); (La.App.
Plaisance v. Plaisance 836 So. 2d 166 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
Dickerson v. Blair 705 So. 2d 1165 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
writ denied, writ denied
Vergne v. Lamaze 670 So. 2d 599 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
1st Cir.1992), writ denied, and
Stockstill v. CF Industries, Inc. 665 So. 2d 802 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
1st Cir.), writs denied, , Mashburn Agency, Inc., 451 So.2d at 115 .
Heritage Worldwide, Inc. v. Jimmy Swaggart Ministries 665 So. 2d 523 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
1st Cir.), writs denied, , (La.
Rhodes v. STATE THROUGH DEPT. OF TRANSP. & DEV. 656 So. 2d 650 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
1st Cir.), writs denied, and (La.
Rhodes v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation & Development 656 So. 2d 650 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
1st Cir.), writs denied, and (La.
Clement v. Griffin 634 So. 2d 412 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
1st Cir.), writs denied and
Premier Bank, Nat. Ass'n v. Robinson 618 So. 2d 1037 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
1st Cir.), writ denied, First Guaranty Bank v. Pineywood Partnership, *1040 (La.App.
Bryant v. City of Baton Rouge 615 So. 2d 884 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
1st Cir.), writ denied, stated as follows in holding that the PCO’s and the FCO’s could not be placed into the Communications District: Pursuant to the clear constitutional and statutory provisions governing the municipal fire and police civil service systems, we find that the municipal positions which are responsible for the oper