Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Michel v. Efferson, 65 So. 2d 115.

24 citing documents.

Billups v. B.C. Enterprise Group, Inc. 104 So. 3d 577 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
V.P. Owen Construction Co. v. Fields 532 So. 2d 835 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
(1953), on rehearing, the Supreme Court held: The courts of this state have held that an owner is not estopped from claiming damages for the breach of a building contract by taking possession and moving into the building.
McDermott, Inc. v. M-Elec. & Const. Co., Inc. 496 So. 2d 1105 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
(1952) and Yeargain v. Blum, supra for this position.
Aldredge v. Aldredge 477 So. 2d 73 La. 1985
Hogan Exploration v. Monroe Engineer. Assoc. 430 So. 2d 696 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
(1953) the court stated: The defense of waiver is a special one and the burden of proof is on the defendants to show that the plaintiff had knowledge of the defects in construction and that she intentionally waived same.
Southbend Contractors, Inc. v. Parish of Jefferson 408 So. 2d 1158 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1981
Hemenway Co., Inc. v. Bartex, Inc., of Texas, (La.App.
DLJ of Louisiana No. 1 v. Green Thumb, Inc. 376 So. 2d 121 La. 1979
[9] DLJ in its application for writs also asserts that the defenses to a nullity action provided by art. 2003 are affirmative defenses, , (1953), and hence were improperly supplied by the court of appeal on its own motion.
Hemenway Co., Inc. v. Bartex, Inc. of Texas 373 So. 2d 1356 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
136, (1953), the Louisiana Supreme Court said: `The defense of waiver is a special one and the burden of proof is on the defendants to show that the plaintiff had knowledge of the defects and intentionally waived the same ....
Tullis v. Vose 348 So. 2d 1277 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
Aetna Finance Co. v. Antoine 343 So. 2d 1195 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1977
Palmer v. Asaff 297 So. 2d 487 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
29 , , , , which authorities clearly hold that to operate as a waiver of the right to claim damages for defective construction the owner must have intended such result and the burden is placed upon the contractor to show the owner had knowledge of the full extent of the damages and intentionally waived his right
Brady Engine Co. of Houma, Inc. v. Devall 289 So. 2d 580 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
4th Cir., 1952); , (1952).
Commercial Credit Corp. v. Gaspard Motors, Inc. 147 So. 2d 881 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
(waiver); Arkansas Louisiana Gas Company v. Thompson, 222 La.
Yeargain v. Blum 144 So. 2d 756 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
Jack v. Henry 128 So. 2d 62 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
2d 627 , , , which authorities clearly hold that to operate as a waiver of the right to claim damages for defective construction the owner must have intended such result and the burden is placed upon the contractor to show the owner had knowledge of the full extent of the damages and intentionally waived his right
Hooter v. Farrar 116 So. 2d 723 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
If the defendant corporation was not satisfied, its representatives should have so notified the plaintiff before taking possession of the work.” In the instant case the trial court distinguished the facts in the cited case from those evidenced herein and followed the legal principles enunciated in Michel v. Efferson, 1953, , .
Hunter v. Mayfield 106 So. 2d 330 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1958
App.1951, ; Kozlowski v. Fowler, La.App.1954, ; In Michel v. Efferson, 1952, , , the Supreme Court in commenting upon the defense of waiver such as interposed herein, stated: "The defense of waiver is a special one and the burden of proof is on the defendants to show that the plaintiff had knowledge of the defects in construction and that she intentionally waived same.
Town & Country Contractors v. Henderson 90 So. 2d 863 La. 1956
the owner sued the building *135 contractor to recover the amount required to remedy faulty construction, and the defense to the suit was that the plaintiff waived whatever claim she had when she accepted the building.
Viator v. Haynesville Mercantile Company 88 So. 2d 1 La. 1956
868 , ; *141 , ; Union Oil Co. of California v. Sevignier Touchet, supra; 31 C.J.S., Estoppel, § 109(b), p. 349.
Breaux v. Laird 88 So. 2d 33 La. 1956
involved a suit to recover from a building contractor and his bondsmen the amount required to remedy faulty construction.
Union Oil Company of California v. Touchet 86 So. 2d 50 La. 1956
Norman v. Brown 83 So. 2d 488 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1955
The Supreme Court in Michel v. Efferson, 1953, , , observed when confronted with a somewhat analogous situation: "The defense of waiver is a special one and the burden of proof is on the defendants to show that the plaintiff had knowledge of the defects in construction and that she intentionally waived same.
Kozlowski v. Fowler 71 So. 2d 246 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1954
In Michel v. Efferson, 1953, , , the Supreme Court, in passing upon a somewhat analagous situation, observed: *250 “The defense of waiver is a special one and the burden of proof is on the defendants to show that the plaintiff had knowledge of the defects in construction and that she intentionally-waived same.
State ex rel. Fudickar v. Hislop 65 So. 2d 390 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953