Legal Opinion

Doll v. Russo

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Decided April 13, 1942No. 17720PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Emile B. Doll, a real estate broker, seeks judgment against defendants, in solido, for $140, alleging that although he had been employed under a written contract giving him the exclusive right to attempt to sell certain real estate, they "conspired to defraud" him "out of his commission" and sold the property through another agent while his contract was in full force and effect. Mr. and Mrs. Anthony Russo, two of the defendants, are the father and mother of the third defendant, Vincent Russo. They deny any indebtedness to Doll, alleging that though Vincent Russo entered into the contract with…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Mathews Bros. v. BerniusSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1930
  2. Leaman v. RauschkolbLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1941
  3. Guy L. Deano, Inc. v. MichelSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1938
  4. Caruso-Goll v. D'AlfonsoLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1941
  5. Myevre v. NortonLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1942

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Strahan v. WeilandLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1968
  2. Cotter v. FigaroLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1948
  3. Derbes v. DallimoreLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1942
  4. Farrier v. GuilloryLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1977
  5. Adair v. FlemingLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1953

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API