DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Friedman Iron & Supply Co. v. J. B. Beaird Co., 63 So. 2d 144.

24 citing documents.

  • Amoco Production Co. v. Texaco, Inc. 838 So. 2d 821 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
  • Sanson Four Rentals, LLC v. Faulk 803 So. 2d 1048 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
    Beaird Co., , (1952): It is presumed, in the sale of personal property, that the parties contemplated the difference between the contract price of the thing sold and the market value at the time and place at which it was to be delivered when they entered into the contract.
  • Barnco Intern., Inc. v. Arkla, Inc. 684 So. 2d 986 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
    See Friedman Iron & , (1952); (La.App.
  • Thompson v. Ellis 680 So. 2d 172 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    Beaird Co., Inc., , (1952); (La.App.
  • May v. Winn Dixie Louisiana, Inc. 613 So. 2d 1026 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
  • State v. Romero 533 So. 2d 1264 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
    1982); Friedman Iron & , (1953); La.Evid.Code art. 803(17) (effective Jan.
  • Guillory v. Trinity Universal Insurance Co. 520 So. 2d 1071 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
    Beaird Co., Inc., , (1952); (La.App.
  • McBride v. Hebert 490 So. 2d 454 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    Beaird Co., Inc., , (1952); (La.App.
  • Security National Bank of Shreveport v. Terrell 482 So. 2d 919 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
  • SECURITY NAT. BANK OF SHREVEPORT v. Terrell 459 So. 2d 131 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
    Beaird Company, , , (1953).
  • Lynch v. Lynch 422 So. 2d 703 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
  • Smith v. Moncrief 421 So. 2d 1127 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
    Beaird Co., Inc., , (1952); (La.App.
  • Ehrhardt v. Cummins 369 So. 2d 213 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
    Friedman Iron and Supply Co. v. J. B. Beaird Co., Inc., , (1952); (La.App.
  • Wexler v. Martin 367 So. 2d 111 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1979
    [1] Friedman Iron & , ; State Dept. of Highways v. Terrebonne, La.App., , writ denied, La., ; Foreman v. General Elec.
  • Succession of Pierson 339 So. 2d 1337 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
    In Friedman Iron & Supply Co. v. Beaird Co., Inc., , (1953) the court stated: "Taking up these points in the order just presented, regarding the first it is hardly necessary to have to state that a plaintiff cannot recover a greater amount than what he prays for.
  • Jones v. Louisiana Dept. of Highways 338 So. 2d 343 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
    See Friedman Iron and Supply Company v. *344 Beaird Company, Inc., , (1953); writ refused
  • Foret v. Aetna Life & Cas. Co. 337 So. 2d 676 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
    In Friedman Iron & Supply Co. v. Beaird Co., Inc., , (S.Ct.1953) the court stated: "Taking up these points in the order just presented, regarding the first it is hardly necessary to have to state that a plaintiff cannot recover a greater amount than what he prays for.
  • Alumaglass Corp. v. Adm'x of Succession of Kendrick 303 So. 2d 911 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
    Friedman Iron & Supply Co. v. J. B. *916 Beaird Co., Inc., , .
  • Schuylkill Products Co. v. Alloy Metal Products, Inc. 219 So. 2d 322 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
    This same rule of law was cited in the case of Friedman Iron & , , where the Court said: “ * * * This court has on numerous occasions pointed out that the measure of damages for the breach of a contract of sale, where no fraud is shown, is the difference between the contract price and the market price of the goods on the date of the breach.” Emphasis supplied by that
  • St. Cyr v. Bryant 203 So. 2d 834 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1967
    In Friedman Iron & , , the Supreme Court said on rehearing: “Under the provisions of Article 1934, LSA-Civil Code, the damages due the plaintiff for the defendant’s breach of the contract is the amount of the loss the plaintiff has sustained and the profit of which it has been deprived * * *.
  • SCHEINUK FLORIST, INC. v. Southern Bell T. & T. Co. 128 So. 2d 683 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1961
    341, an English case followed by Louisiana courts; Friedman Iron & Supply Co. v. J. B. Beaird Co., 1952, , .
  • Dairy Specialties, Inc. v. Verbene 117 So. 2d 632 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
    “When there is an active violation of the contract, damages are due from tbe moment the act of contravention has been done, and the creditor is under no obligation to put the debtor in default, in order to entitle him to his action.” See also Friedman Iron & Supply Co. v. J. B. Beaird Co., 1952, , .
  • Modicut v. Rist 98 So. 2d 268 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
    Friedman Iron & , ; Bayou Rapides Lbr.
  • Pepper v. Katz 77 So. 2d 891 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
    In Friedman Iron & Supply Co. v. J. B. Beaird Co., Inc., , , on rehearing the Court said: “ * * * This rule of law is based on solid grounds because neither a plaintiff nor a defendant should be permitted to select the market value of a date different from that on which the contract was breached for the purpose of determining whether any loss was suffered