Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. J. Watts Kearny Sons, 160 So. 77.

21 citing documents.

Odebrecht Construction, Inc. v. Louisiana Department of Revenue 182 So. 3d 132 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
1061 , (1957) and (2) , 160 So.
Cynthia Bridges, Sec., La Dept. of Revenue v. Cepolk Corporation La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
Bridges v. Cepolk Corp. 153 So. 3d 1137 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. J. Watts Kearny & Sons, , 160 So.
F. Miller & Sons v. Calcasieu School Bd. 838 So. 2d 1269 La. 2003
1061 , (1957); State v. J. Watts Kearny & Sons, , 160 So.
Clyde Juneau v. CADDO-SHREVEPORT SALES 677 So. 2d 610 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
The traditional view of contractors under Louisiana law was stated in State v. J. Watts Kearny & Sons, , 160 So.
Amberg Trucking, Inc. v. Tarver 626 So. 2d 511 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
1061 , (1957); State v. J. Watts Kearny & Sons, , 160 So.
Bill Roberts, Inc. v. McNamara 539 So. 2d 1226 La. 1989
1061 , (1957); State v. J. Watts Kearney & Sons, , 160 So.
Regional Mechanical Contractors, Inc. v. McNamara 536 So. 2d 818 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
See State v. J. Watts Kearny & Sons, , 160 So.
ST. PIERRE'S FABRICATION & WELD., INC. v. McNamara 495 So. 2d 1295 La. 1986
Cited for authority was the earlier case State v. J. Watts Kearny & Son, , 160 So.
Concordia Parish School Bd. v. Russ 491 So. 2d 1368 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
The Louisiana Supreme Court has addressed this issue in State v. J. Watts Kearny & Sons, , 160 So.
St. Pierre's Fabrication & Welding, Inc. v. McNamara 485 So. 2d 544 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
The Court, in finding contractors were “end users” and thus sales to them retail transactions, stated at page 347: It was pointed out in the Kearny case [State v. J. Watts Kearny & Sons, , 160 So.
Codesco, Inc. v. Collector of Revenue 365 So. 2d 577 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
The Collector urges that our decision on this matter is dictated by State v. J. Watts Kearny & Sons, , 160 So.
Distinguished Dental Arts, Inc. v. Collector of Revenue 360 So. 2d 654 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1978
See also State v. J. Watts Kearny & Sons, , 160 So.
Distinguished American Sign & Indicator Corp. v. City of Lake Charles 320 So. 2d 234 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
1061 , (1957) and State v. J. Watts Kearney & Sons, , 160 So.
Chicago Bridge & Iron Company v. Cocreham 317 So. 2d 605 La. 1975
State v. J. Watts Kearny & Sons, , 559, 160 So.
American Creosote Works, Inc. v. Collector of Revenue of Louisiana 101 So. 2d 245 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1958
“In State v. J. Watts Kearny & Sons, , [ 160 So.
Claiborne Sales Company v. Collector of Revenue 99 So. 2d 345 La. 1957
47:301(10) reads, in pertinent part: ‘ “Retail sale” or “sale at retail” means a sale to a consumer or to any person for any purpose other than a resale in the form of tangible personal property * * *.’ ’’ The question of whether or not sales to contractors and sub-contractors are retail sales was specifically passed on in the case of State v. J. Watts Kearny & Sons, , 160 So.
State v. U-Drive It Car Co. 79 So. 2d 590 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
601 ; State v. J. Watts Kearny & Sons, , 160 So.
Liquidation of Canal Bank & Trust Co. 30 So. 2d 841 La. 1947
601 ; State v. J. Watts Kearny & Sons, , 160 So.
State v. Board of Com'rs of Port of New Orleans 3 So. 2d 622 La. 1941
572 , State v. J. Watts Kearney & Sons, , 160 So.
State v. Owin 186 So. 46 La. 1938
“With respect to the small sales defendant makes to manufacturing jewelers, I have been unable to perceive that there is any distinction in principle between the business conducted by the defendant here and that engaged in by the respondents in the case of State v. J. Watts Kearny & Sons, , 160 So.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by