Cited by
Opinions in Louisiana that cite Burglass v. Villere, 129 So. 209.
- Poole v. American Bank & Trust Co. 416 So. 2d 1365 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
- Henry v. Newman 351 So. 2d 1277 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
- State v. Cappo 345 So. 2d 443 La. 1977
- Bill Garrett Leasing, Inc. v. General Lumber & Supply Co. 164 So. 2d 364 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
- Hernandez v. Harson 111 So. 2d 320 La. 1959
- Watkins v. Abshire 108 So. 2d 666 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
- Melancon v. Texas Company 89 So. 2d 135 La. 1956
-
G. F. C. Corp. v. Rollins
50 So. 2d 460
La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1951
598 ; Burglass v. Villere , 129 So.
- Efner v. Ketteringham 47 So. 2d 331 La. 1950
- Rhodes v. Collier 41 So. 2d 669 La. 1949
- Commercial Securities Co. v. Mattingly 26 So. 2d 37 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1946
- State v. Fletcher 27 So. 2d 179 La. 1946
- Tucker v. Legette 8 So. 2d 339 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
- General Finance Co. of Louisiana v. Veith 177 So. 71 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
- Ethridge-Atkins Corporation v. Tilly 178 So. 669 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
-
Tyler v. Phillips
150 So. 681
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
Whatever may be the holding- in the Edwards Case, the Supreme Court in a very recent decision, reversing this court, held that prescription on a claim for damages for the illegal issuance of a writ of injunction did not commence to run “until it was judicially determined that the injunction was obtained wrongfully.” , 129 So.
-
Burglass v. Villere
147 So. 727
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
eme Court and on June 2, 1930, that court reversed the decisions of the trial court and this court,, overruling the plea of prescription in toto, and ordered the case remanded to the civil' district court “for trial of the reconventional demand of Abraham Burglass for damages, in his supplemental answer, as well as in his original answer to the petition of Anthony P. Loyacano for an injunction” ( , 129 So.
- Ranson v. Voiron 146 So. 681 La. 1933