Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Plicque & Lebeau v. Perret, 19 La. 318.

14 citing documents.

Smith v. UTILITY & MAINTENANCE CON. OF AMER., INC. 301 So. 2d 906 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1975
576; [Plicque v. Perret] ; [Gilman v. Horseley] 5 [Mart.]
McNeal v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. 278 So. 2d 108 La. 1973
805 (1882); Plicque & (1841).
Bruton v. Traders & General Insurance 111 So. 2d 816 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
to result from the doctrine of the following cases, that it matters not in what form of proceeding the question is presented, whether by answer or exception to the petition, when once decided, it is res judicata between the parties to that proceeding, and is a complete bar to another demand for the same thing on the same cause of action, viz.: Plicque & LeBlanc v. Perret (Peain, Intervener), ; Heroman v. Institute, 34 La.Ann.
Lerner v. Bischoff 193 So. 236 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1940
See Plicque & , Fluker v. De Grange, 117 La.
Callender v. Marks 173 So. 785 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
to result from the doctrine of the following cases, that it matters not in what form of proceeding the question is presented, whether by answer or exception to the petition, when once decided, it is res judicata between the parties to that proceeding, and is a complete bar to another demand for the same thing on the same cause of action, viz: Plicque & Le Blanc v. Perret (Peain, Intervenor), ; Heroman v. Louisiana Institute, 34 La.Ann.
Greenwood Planting & Mfg. Co. v. Whitney Central Trust & Savings Bank 83 So. 832 La. 1920
Laenger v. Laenger 70 So. 501 La. 1915
to result from the-doctrine of the following cases, that it matters not in what form of proceeding the question is presented, whether by answer or exception to the petition, when once decided, it is res judicata between the parties to that proceeding, and is a complete bar to-another demand for the same thing on the same cause of action, viz.: Plicque & LeBlanc v. Perret (Peain, Intervener), ; Heroman v. Institute, 34 La.
Police Jury of Lafourche v. Police Jury of Terrebonne 22 So. 376 La. 1897
Hewett v. Williams 19 So. 604 La. 1895
Plicque vs. Perret, ; Trescott vs. Lewis, 12 An.
Conery v. New Orleans Water Works Co. 41 La. Ann. 910 La. 1889
In our jurisprudence the rule has been promulgated thus: “It matters not under what form, whether by petition, exception, rule or intervention, the question be presented, whenever the same question recurs between the same parties, even under a different form of procedure, the exception of 'res judicata estops.” Plicque vs. Peret, ; Sewell vs. Scott, 35 Ann. 553.
Sewell v. Scott. 35 La. Ann. 553 La. 1883
We understand our jurisprudence to have settled the rule as follows : “ It matters not under what form, whether by petition, exception, rule or intervention, the question be presented, whenever the same question recurs between the same parties, even under a different form of procedure, the exception of res judicata estops.” Plicque vs. Perret, ; Trescote vs. Lewis, 12 An.
Succession of McDonogh 24 La. Ann. 33 La. 1872
Wells v. Compton 3 Rob. 171 La. 1842
Towles v. Conrad 3 Rob. 69 La. 1842
It -only remains to inquire whether the the thing demanded be the same, to bring the case within art. 2265 of the Code, .