Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite In Re Interstate Trust & Banking Company, 106 So. 2d 276.

25 citing documents.

Louise Kaltenbaugh, ph.D. and Katherine Robinson, ph.D. v. Board of Supervisors, Southern University and Agricultural and Mechanical College … La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2022
551, 568, (1965); (1958) (on rehearing)).
Avants v. Kennedy 837 So. 2d 647 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
[1] WHIPPLE, J. In this appeal, the Louisiana Department of Revenue and Taxation ("the Department") challenges the trial court's award of attorney fees to the four attorneys who represented plaintiffs herein, which award was based upon the "fund doctrine" or "common fund doctrine," as recognized in In re Interstate Trust & Banking Company, , 106 So.2d *650 276 (1958)(on rehearing).
Sierra Club v. Louisiana Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries 560 So. 2d 976 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
In re Interstate Trust & *978 Banking Company, , (1958).
Kirkpatrick v. Young 456 So. 2d 622 La. 1984
Only once since then, in In re Interstate Trust & Banking Company, , (1958), have we permitted recovery under this doctrine, and the prerequisites for such recovery were made explicit: An attorney may recover fees from those not his clients when that attorney alone and at his own expense has maintained a successful suit for the preservation, protection, or increase of a
Reiss v. Superior Industries, Inc. 430 So. 2d 260 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
Our Supreme Court first applied what has now come to be called the “common fund” doctrine in In Re Interstate Trust & Banking Company
Kelly v. Nat. Life and Acc. Ins. Co. 393 So. 2d 130 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
He cites in support thereof inter alia In Re Interstate Trust & Banking Company
Lyons v. City of Shreveport 339 So. 2d 466 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1977
551 , (1965) and In re Interstate Trust & Banking Company, , (1958), while authority for the proposition that an attorney can occasionally recover from one not his client, involve very unusual circumstances.
Palmer v. Stewart 334 So. 2d 520 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
Primarily, the Court notes, from In Re: Intertate Trust and Banking Company, , , that the difficulty of the legal problem is one of the elements to be considered in a cause of this type.
Davis v. Smith 330 So. 2d 402 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
465 , , the court quoted with approval from the case of In re Interstate Trust & Banking Company, , : “In determining the amount to be awarded them as reasonable attorneys’ fees, the court should consider the extent and nature of the services rendered by these attorneys; the labor, time, and trouble involved; the results achieved; the character and importance of the matter; the amount of mon
Oil Purchasers, Inc. v. Kuehling 321 So. 2d 17 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
(1958); Baghramain v. M.F.A.
Mire v. Travelers Insurance Co. 318 So. 2d 93 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
3rd Cir. 1973); Chouest v. A & P Boat Rentals, Inc., 472 F.2d 1026 (5th Cir. 1973); and In Re Interstate Trust & Banking Co.
Broussard, Broussard & M., Ltd. v. STATE A. &. CU CO. 287 So. 2d 544 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1974
551 , (1965); In re Interstate Trust & Banking Company, , (1958); (La.App.
Lynch v. Burglass 286 So. 2d 170 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1973
[4] Herman v. Jambois, supra ; In re: Interstate Trust & Banking Company, , ; Peiser v. Grand Isle, 224 La.
Baron v. Peter 286 So. 2d 480 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
Nunez v. Ricks 262 So. 2d 585 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
Succession of Gilmore 239 So. 2d 462 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
See In re Interstate Trust & Banking Company, , ; Louisiana State Mineral Board v. Abadie, La.App., .
Caswell v. Reserve National Insurance Company 234 So. 2d 250 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1970
In Re Interstate Trust & Banking Company, , (1958).
Nugent v. Downs 230 So. 2d 597 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1970
2 Cir. 1968); In re Interstate Trust & Banking Company, , (1958); Henriques v. Vaccaro, 218 La.
Herman v. Jambois 205 So. 2d 63 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1967
In re Interstate Trust & Banking Company, , ; Peiser v. Grand Isle, 224 La.
Lofaso v. Blanchard 185 So. 2d 579 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
The Supreme Court of this State has passed on the method of determining the quantum to be awarded as reasonable attorneys fees in the case of , (1958).
Louisiana State Mineral Board v. Albarado 173 So. 2d 5 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
The so-called “fund doctrine” based on the application of the equitable principles of unjust enrichment and quantum meruit was accepted and cautiously applied by our Supreme Court in In re Interstate Trust & Banking Company, , (1958).
Vizier v. Howard 165 So. 2d 655 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
The next case is, In re Interstate Trust & Banking Company, in Liquidation, , .
Louisiana State Mineral Board v. Abadie 164 So. 2d 159 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
825, , and in others on alleged contracts and alternatively on the "fund doctrine", all of which said claims were rejected by the trial court and from which said adverse judgment all claimants have appealed.
Moore v. Motors Insurance Corp. 152 So. 2d 404 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
See In re Interstate Trust & Banking Company, , .
McGovern v. Gilbert 127 So. 2d 93 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
Interstate Trust & Banking Co., 1958, , .