DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite In Re Ph&338nix Building Homestead Ass'n, 14 So. 2d 447.

28 citing documents.

  • Judson v. Davis 81 So. 3d 712 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    & Homestead Ass’n, , -50 (La.1943), and Liquidation of Canal Bank & Trust Co., 211 La.
  • Arledge v. Sherrill 738 So. 2d 1215 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    791 , (1950); In re Phoenix Building & Homestead Association, , (1943).
  • Milling, Benson, Woodward, Hillyer, Pierson & Miller L.L.P. v. American Marine Holding Co. 729 So. 2d 139 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    791 , (1950); In re Phoenix Building & Homestead Association, , (1943).
  • Devers v. Southern University 712 So. 2d 199 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    791 , (1950); In re Phoenix Building & Homestead Association, , (1943).
  • Montalvo v. Sondes 637 So. 2d 127 La. 1994
    791 , (1950); In re Phoenix Building & Homestead Association, , (1943).
  • O'Neill v. Sumrall 481 So. 2d 157 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    840 , (1962); In re Phoenix Building & Homestead Assn., , (1943); Folse v. St.
  • Lemaire v. Younger Transp., Inc. of Texas 443 So. 2d 662 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    In re Phoenix Building & Homestead Ass'n, , (1943); (La.App.
  • Reed v. Yor-Wil, Inc. 406 So. 2d 236 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    In re Phoenix Building & Homestead Ass'n, , (1943); (La.App.
  • Nethken v. Nethken 307 So. 2d 563 La. 1975
    840 , (1963); In re Phoenix Building & Homestead Assn., , (1943); Folse v. St.
  • State ex rel. Guste v. First National Bank of Jefferson Parish 305 So. 2d 687 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
    1048 , ; In re Phoenix Building & Homestead Ass’n., , ; Ethridge-Atkins Corp. v. Tilly, La.App., 178 So.
  • Small v. Wabnig 305 So. 2d 710 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
    stating of a cause of action, for a plaintiff to make general allegations of irregularities and omissions ; he must set forth in his petition, clearly and accurately, definite facts from which there, can be drawn the conclusion that a reconsideration or the conducting of further proceedings will result in a different decree.” Similarly, in the case of In re Phoenix Building & Homestead Assn., , (1943), dismissal of a petition seeking to annul a judgment homologating an account on ground of f
  • Collins v. Zachary Hardwood Lumber Co. 207 So. 2d 796 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
    1048 , ; In re Phoenix Building & Homestead Ass’n, , ; Ethridge-Atkins Corp. v. Tilly, La.App., 178 So.
  • Loeb v. Badalamenti 192 So. 2d 246 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1967
    791 , ; In re Phoenix Building & Homestead Ass'n, , .
  • Hamilton v. City of Shreveport 180 So. 2d 30 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1966
    360 (1939); In re Phoenix Building & Homestead Ass'n, , (1943); Latham v. Latham, 216 La.
  • Succession of Menendez 155 So. 2d 212 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
    803 , ; In re Phoenix Building & Homestead Ass’n, , ; Woodward, Wight & Co. v. National Box Co., 168 La.
  • Succession of Danneel 152 So. 2d 29 La. 1963
    721 , *31 We granted writs in this case so that we might determine whether the pronouncement by this court, first made in In re Phoenix Building & Homestead Ass’n, , , and repeated in Liquidation of Canal Bank & Trust Co., 211 La.
  • Allen v. Commercial National Bank in Shreveport 147 So. 2d 865 La. 1962
    1048 , ; In re Phoenix Building & Homestead Ass’n., , ; Ethridge-Atkins Corp. v. Tilly, La.App., 178 So.
  • Allen v. Commercial National Bank in Shreveport 138 So. 2d 252 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1962
    In re Phoenix Building & Homestead Ass'n, , ; Folse v. St.
  • West Carroll Nat. Bank v. West Carroll Par. Sch. Bd. 136 So. 2d 699 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1961
    See, also, In re Phoenix Building & Homestead Ass'n, , ; Florida Molasses Co. v. Berger, 220 La.
  • Cousin v. Alexander 119 So. 2d 584 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
    & Homestead Ass’n, , .
  • Succession of Nock 119 So. 2d 476 La. 1960
    The jurisdictional issue upon which the demand of nullity is based is not before us. In the case of In re Phoenix Building & Homestead Ass’n, , , we exhaustively reviewed our jurisprudence pertaining to the effect of judgments homologating accounts, and said: “It has been repeatedly held by this court since its decision in the case of Dussuau’s Syndics v. Bredeaux, 4 Mart, O.S., 450, in 1816, and has that long been the settled law of this
  • Austin v. Succession of Austin 73 So. 2d 312 La. 1954
    The mere conclusion of the pleader unsupported by facts does not set forth a cause or right of action.” Then, again, In re Phoenix Building & Homestead Association, , , we said: “It is so well settled that it requires no citation of authorities that a mere conclusion of the' pleader, unsupported by any facts, fails to disclose a cause or right of action.
  • McGee v. Finley 65 So. 2d 384 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1953
    360 ; Dilworth v. Hebert, La.App.1942, ; In re Phoenix Building & Homestead Association, , ; LeBlanc v. Danciger Oil & Refining Company, 218 La.
  • Sollie v. Means 58 So. 2d 286 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1952
    791 , ; In re Phoenix Building & Homestead Association, 1943, , .
  • Latham v. Latham 44 So. 2d 870 La. 1950
    In re Phoenix Building & Homestead Association, , .
  • Bank of Baton Rouge v. Hart Estate, Inc. 44 So. 2d 311 La. 1950
    296 ); In re Phoenix Building & Homestead Association, supra ( , ).” It was mainly on that authority that the trial judge sustained the exceptions in the present case.
  • Dowling v. Canal Bank & Trust Co. 43 So. 2d 763 La. 1949
    In the case of , , 449 , wherein we entertained, on appeal, a controversy regarding the payment of attorneys fees for services rendered in the liquidation of a homestead, it is stated: [60] "It has been repeatedly held by this court since its decision in the case of Dussuau's Syndics v. Bredeaux, 4 Mart., O.S., 450, in
  • Liquidation of Canal Bank & Trust Co. 30 So. 2d 841 La. 1947
    books, no provision being made for the payment of interest and “It has been repeatedly held by this court since its decision in the case of Dussuau’s Syndics v. Bredeaux, 4 Mart., O.S., 450, in 1816, and has that long been the settled law of this state, that judgments homologating accounts are final and have the authority of the thing adjudged.” In re Phoenix Building & Homestead Association, , .