Legal Opinion
Alengi v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.
Louisiana Court of Appeal
Decided April 3, 1936No. Nos. 5086, 5087PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HAMITER, Judge.
When these motor vehicle collision cases were previously before us for review, we considered only the matter of quantum, as the appeal taken by plaintiffs was restricted to that item. Defendants did not appeal from the trial court’s judgment, but filed answers to the appeal and prayed that all issues be reviewed and that plaintiffs’ demands be rejected in toto. Our decree directed an increase in the amount of damages awarded. 162 So. 218.
Thereafter, on application of defendants, the Supreme Court granted a writ of cer-tiorari, reversed and annulled our judgment, and remanded…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Loewenberg v. Fidelity Union Casualty Co.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1933
- Payne v. PrestridgeLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1931
- Alengi v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1935
- Lucas v. AndressLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1931
- Johnston v. WorleyLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1926
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Rhymes v. GuidryLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1955
- Barrett v. Nash Finch Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1949
- Liddell v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1961
- Camus v. BienvenueLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1956
- Morgan v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty InsuranceDistrict Court, W.D. Louisiana · 1963
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.