Brumfield v. Dyson, 422 So. 2d 162 (La. 1982). · Go Syfert
Search
Brumfield v. Dyson, 422 So. 2d 162 (La. 1982). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
45 citation events (18 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Coury Moss, Inc. v. Coury (lactapp, 2008-04-30)
Treatment trajectory · 1982 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1982 2004 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" Coury Moss, Inc. v. Coury
La. Ct. App. · 2008 · signal: see · confidence high
See Brumfield v. Dyson, 418 So.2d 21 (La.App. 1st Cir.), writ denied, 422 So.2d 162 (La.1982).
cited Cited "see" In Re Succession of Moss
La. Ct. App. · 2008 · signal: see · confidence high
See Brumfield v. Dyson, 418 So.2d 21 (La.App. 1st Cir.), writ denied, 422 So.2d 162 (La.1982).
cited Cited "see" Edwards v. Horstman
La. Ct. App. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See Brumfield v. Dyson, 418 So.2d 21 (La.App. 1st Cir.), writ denied, 422 So.2d 162 (La.1982).
cited Cited "see" Sanders v. Posi-Seal International
La. Ct. App. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See Brumfield v. Dyson, 418 So.2d 21 (La.App. 1st Cir.), writ denied, 422 So.2d 162 (La.1982).
cited Cited "see" Cree Oil Co. v. Home Ins. Co.
La. Ct. App. · 1995 · signal: see · confidence high
See Brumfield v. Dyson, 418 So.2d 21 (La.App. 1st Cir.), writ denied, 422 So.2d 162 (La.1982).
cited Cited "see" Dodson v. Community Blood Center
La. Ct. App. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See Brumfield v. Dyson, 418 So.2d 21 (La.App. 1st Cir.), writ denied, 422 So.2d 162 (La.1982).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Terrance v. Dow Chemical Co.
La. Ct. App. · 2007 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Brumfield v. Dyson, 418 So.2d 21, 22 (La.App. 1 Cir.), *1064 writ denied, 422 So.2d 162 (La.1982).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Geneva BRUMFIELD, et al.
v.
Edward DYSON, et al.
82-C-2383.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Nov 12, 1982.
422 So. 2d 162
Lemmon.
Published

Denied. The result is correct.

LEMMON, J., concurs. The judgment is correct on the alternative holding, but is incorrect on the "law of the case" theory.