Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Quarles v. Lewis, 75 So. 2d 14.

47 citing documents.

Steckler v. Lafayette Consolidated Government 76 So. 3d 161 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
We are instructed to look to the “kind of relief sought.” ( , (1954), overruled on other grounds, ).
Shaun Steckler v. Lafayette Consolidated Government La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
We are instructed to look to the “kind of relief sought.” ( overruled on other grounds, ).
Ryan v. Grandison Trust 504 So. 2d 844 La. 1987
(1954), overruled on other grounds
Ryan v. Grandison Trust 490 So. 2d 317 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Defendant contends that in both the instant suit and the prior litigation, the “thing demanded” (i.e., the relief sought), , is the same: extinguishment of the mineral servitude burdening Tract “A” of the Harrison lands.
Overruled Wilson v. HJ Wilson Co., Inc. 430 So. 2d 1227 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
Welch v. Crown Zellerbach Corp., supra, decided against using the `judicial estoppel' or collateral estoppel recognized in California Co. v. Price, supra; insofar as California Co. v. Price recognized collateral estoppel, it is overruled ( , (1954); Buillard v. Davis, 185 La.
Emory v. Gardner 415 So. 2d 339 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
The Louisiana Supreme Court has equated "object of the demand" with the kind of relief sought in Quarles v. Lewis, [3] , (1954).
International Indemnity Co. v. Cheryl 413 So. 2d 603 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
4th Cir. 1977); , (1954) overruled on other grounds in Ugulano v. Allstate Ins.
Overruled Ugulano v. Allstate Ins. Co. 367 So. 2d 6 La. 1978
Welch v. Crown Zellerbach Corp., supra, decided against using the "judicial estoppel" or collateral estoppel recognized in California Co. v. Price, supra; insofar as California Co. v. Price recognized collateral estoppel, it is overruled ( , (1954); Buillard v. Davis, 185 La.
Mitchell v. Bertolla 340 So. 2d 287 La. 1976
(1954); Buillard v. Davis, 185 La.
Brown v. Globe Tool & Engineering Co. 337 So. 2d 894 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1976
plaintiff had originally sued to compel specific performance of a contract to sell immovable property and obtained a judgment.
Reed v. Classified Parking System 324 So. 2d 484 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1975
Sliman v. McBee 311 So. 2d 248 La. 1975
But see, , (1954), noted in 29 Tul.L.Rev.
Trahan v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. 303 So. 2d 606 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
Friendly Finance, Inc. v. Cefalu Realty Invest., Inc. 303 So. 2d 558 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
Article 2286 , (1954) the issue was not res judicata, however, the result is the same.
Creech v. Capitol Mack, Inc. 299 So. 2d 802 La. 1974
Barnett v. Develle 289 So. 2d 129 La. 1974
338 , ; , , and Donald v. O'Meara, 5 Cir., 473 F.2d 799 .
Nicholson v. Holloway Planting Company, Inc. 284 So. 2d 898 La. 1973
(1954); Hope v. Madison, 194 La.
Bordelon v. Landry 278 So. 2d 173 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1973
666 ; , ; The Work of the Louisiana Supreme Court for the 1957-58 Term Civil Procedure, supra note 1.
Broussard v. Broussard 275 So. 2d 410 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1973
116 ; , ; Brown Land & Royalty Company v. Pickett, 226 La.
New Orleans Firefighters Ass'n Local 632 v. City of New Orleans 269 So. 2d 194 La. 1972
(1954) reconciles this State’s jurisprudence regarding res judicata, firmly establishing that it is the civilian doctrine, and not the common law doctrine of res judicata that Louisiana applies.
Mid-States Ins. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. 240 So. 2d 908 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
Slidell Building Supply, Inc. v. I. D. S. Mortgage Corp. 237 So. 2d 923 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
(1954) our Supreme Court was considering a suit for damages for defendant’s failure to comply with a contract for the purchase of real estate.
White v. White 233 So. 2d 289 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
The Supreme Court granted writs, , and exhaustively reviewed the jurisprudence on the subject and stated as follows: ( ) - “On the face of things, it would appear that the view of the lower courts is in conflict with Article 2286 of the LSA-Civil Code for that Article declares that the authority of the thing adjudged takes
Eugene v. Ventress 209 So. 2d 341 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
Brown Land & Royalty Co. v. Pickett, 226 La.
Grain Dealers Mut. Ins. Co. v. HARDWARE D. MUT. FI CO. 196 So. 2d 650 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
and Succession of Reynolds, 231 La.
Alexander v. Alexander 196 So. 2d 628 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
440 ; Shell Oil Co. v. Texas Gas Transmission Corp., La.App., ; , .
Hayes v. Muller 183 So. 2d 310 La. 1966
Quinette v. Delhommer 176 So. 2d 399 La. 1965
207 , ; , ; Durmeyer v. Streiffer, 215 La.
Shell Oil Company v. Texas Gas Transmission Corp. 176 So. 2d 692 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1965
Brown Land & Royalty Co. v. Pickett, 226 La.
Quinette v. Delhommer 176 So. 2d 399 La. 1965
207 , ; , ; Durmeyer v. Streiffer, 215 La.
National Surety Corp. v. Standard Accident Ins. Co. 175 So. 2d 263 La. 1965
the Court of Appeal pertinently stated that, "It should be noted, first, that the `demand' of the suit is not synonymous with the `cause of action (s)' therein, cf., , .
National Surety Corp. v. Standard Accident Insurance 175 So. 2d 263 La. 1965
ants duty has arisen, coupled with the facts which constitute the latter’s wrong.’ Quotations from 2 Words & Phrases, First Series, Cause of Action, p. 1017.” , the Court of Appeal pertinently stated that, “It should be noted, first, that the ‘demand’ of the suit is not synonymous with the ‘cause of action(s)’ therein, cf., , .
Giroir v. Dumesnil 172 So. 2d 89 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
which contains a comprehensive review of the various instances wherein the effect of res adjudicata and judicial estoppel have been judicially extended, it is clearly made to appear that these instances relate to cases in which the rule is applied to matters which could have been pleaded but were not.
Rouseo v. Atlas Finance Co. 167 So. 2d 495 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1964
*498 , , while differing in one material aspect, is pertinent to the question presented here.
Holland v. St. Paul Mercury Insurance Co. 135 So. 2d 145 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
Williams v. Marionneaux 124 So. 2d 919 La. 1960
we took occasion to comment on the Norton and Olivier cases observing that, whereas the cases were properly decided, the Court was in error in regarding the defendants’ pleas as pleas of res judicata but should have treated them as exceptions of no cause of action or judicial estoppel.
Buhler v. Villec 117 So. 2d 286 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
Tucker v. New Orleans Laundries, Inc. 114 So. 2d 866 La. 1959
this court had occasion to discuss at great length the plea of res judicata.
Taylor v. Williams 107 So. 2d 319 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1958
Comment"Res Judicata Matters which might have been pleaded.", by Claude O'Quin, 2 La.Law Review, 491-525; , ; Brown Land & Royalty Co., Inc., v. Pickett, 226 La.
Hart v. Hardgrave 103 So. 2d 910 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1958
Bank of Terrebonne & Trust Co. v. Marcel 102 So. 2d 539 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
California Company v. Price 99 So. 2d 743 La. 1958
116 ; , ; Brown Land & Royalty Company v. Pickett, 226 La.
Dupre v. Consolidated Underwriters 99 So. 2d 522 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
It should be noted, first, that the "demand" of the suit is not synonymous with the "cause of action(s)" therein, cf., , .
Quarles v. Lewis 98 So. 2d 301 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
However, we were reversed by the Supreme Court, , , which held that for that exception to lie as to the second suit the demand of both suits must be the same, as well as the parties and the cause of action, Article 2286, LSA-Civil Code; whereas the demand of the first suit — i. e., to compel specific performance • — differed from that of the second suit
De Lee v. Price 94 So. 2d 79 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
*82 To be sustained, both of these exceptions require that the (1) parties, (2) cause of action, and (3) object (or demand) be the same, Article 335(2), C.P.; Article 2286, LSA-Civil Code; see, , .
Succession of Reynolds 91 So. 2d 584 La. 1956
wherein this court reviewed the jurisprudence on the subject.
Brown Land & Royalty Co. v. Pickett 75 So. 2d 18 La. 1954
424 ; and Quarles v. Lewis, La., .