Dep't of Highways v. Mims, 339 So. 2d 16 (La. 1976). · Go Syfert
Search
Dep't of Highways v. Mims, 339 So. 2d 16 (La. 1976). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
12 citation events (3 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Terrebonne Parish Consolidated Government v. Richard (lactapp, 2016-06-02)
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" Terrebonne Parish Consolidated Government v. Richard
La. Ct. App. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
See State, Department of Highways v. Mims, 336 So.2d 24, 27 (La.App. 3d Cir.), writ denied 339 So.2d 16 (La.1976).
discussed Cited "see" Villetto v. Weilbaecher
La. Ct. App. · 1979 · signal: see · confidence high
See State Department of Highways v. Mims, 336 So.2d 24 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1976) writ denied, La., 339 So.2d 16 ; Records of the Louisiana Constitutional Convention of 1973: Journal of Proceedings, Vol. 6, pp. 756-757.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Hurst v. Eaton
La. Ct. App. · 1991 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also State, Department of Highways v. Mims, 336 So.2d 24 (La.App. 3d Cir.) on application for rehearing, writ denied, 339 So.2d 16 (La.1976), and Williams v. City of New Orleans, 433 So.2d 1129 (La.App. 4th Cir.) on application for rehearing, writ not considered, 437 So.2d 1135 (La.1983).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Agusiegbe v. Petroleum Associates of Lafayette, Inc.
La. Ct. App. · 1986 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., State, Department of Highways v. Mims, 336 So.2d 24 (La.App. 3rd Cir.), writ denied, 339 So.2d 16 (La.1976); Cangelosi v. McInnis Peterson Chevrolet, Inc., 373 So.2d 1346 (La.App. 1st Cir.1979); and Franklin Printing Company, Inc. v. Scott Fence of New Orleans, Inc., 392 So.2d 170 (La.App. 4th Cir.1980), writ denied, 397 So.2d 805 (La.1981).
STATE of Louisiana Through the DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
v.
Dorothy Finke MIMS et al.
58625.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Nov 5, 1976.
339 So. 2d 16
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

Application denied. On the findings of the Courts below, there is no merit in the assignments of error.