Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Marek v. McHardy, 101 So. 2d 689.

14 citing documents.

Latter & Blum, Inc. v. Ditta 223 So. 3d 54 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
Williams v. EARL K. LONG MEDICAL CENTER 40 So. 3d 412 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2010
(1958) involved a physician who sued to recover damages as a result of the defendants’ breach of an agreement to give him a ten percent interest in a future medical partnership.
Qayyum v. MOREHOUSE GENERAL HOSP. 874 So. 2d 371 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
(1958), a physician sued to recover damages he sustained for breach of an agreement to give him a ten percent interest in a future medical partnership.
Parry v. Administrators of the Tulane Educational Fund 828 So. 2d 30 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
(1958), and Duer and Taylor v. Blanchard, Walker, O’Quin and Roberts, the Class contends that the Louisiana Supreme Court has twice decided under factually analogous contractual relationships that a ten-year, not a three-year, |sprescriptive period applies.
Stewart v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 542 So. 2d 1166 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
Howard Motors, Inc. v. Beeson 453 So. 2d 652 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
Fairfield Dev. Co. v. Jackson 438 So. 2d 664 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
Duer & Taylor v. BLANCHARD, WALKER, ETC. 354 So. 2d 192 La. 1978
Andrew Dev. Corp. v. West Esplanade Corp. 347 So. 2d 210 La. 1977
Lawton v. Louisiana Pac. Corp. 344 So. 2d 1129 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
(1958), which states that an anticipatory breach of contract is actionable in Louisiana.
Simpson v. Kelly Services, Inc. 339 So. 2d 490 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1977
The lower court found that the actions of Kelly Services concerning the amount of severance compensation constituted an "anticipatory breach" , (1958).
Frazier v. Slumberline, Inc. 319 So. 2d 453 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
Toups v. Toups Truck & Tractor Service, Inc. 238 So. 2d 200 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
It is sufficient that she plead the facts and set forth a cause of action entitling her to judgment for the damages alleged.” We are satisfied that this case presents a situation where plaintiff should be permitted to prove an anticipatory breach of contract, , (1958).
Pacholik v. Gray 187 So. 2d 480 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1966
See: , ; Fox v. Doll, 221 La.