Cited by
Opinions in Louisiana that cite Hayes v. Muller, 158 So. 2d 191.
-
Ike Spears v. William W. Hall
La. 2026
Joint venture A joint venture is the “special combination of two or more persons who jointly seek a profit through a specific [venture] without any partnership or corporate designation.” 158 So.
-
Lucky v. Carr
264 So. 3d 693
La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2019
App. 5 Cir. 5/27/08), (plaintiff sought damages for breach of oral promise to sell immovable property; grant of summary judgment against plaintiff was appropriate because of the unsatisfied writing requirement for the validity of contracts affecting the property); , (1963) (joint venturers entered oral agreement to purchase mineral lease; however, the lease was acquired in the name of only one of the venturers and later sold at a profit; other venturer filed suit to recover share of the profits;
-
Kennedy v. Saheid
209 So. 3d 985
La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
(1963); Texas Gen’l (La.
- Brignac v. Barranco 182 So. 3d 88 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
-
John W. Stone Oil Distributor, LLC v. RIVER OAKS CON. & DEV., INC.
986 So. 2d 103
La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
In reaching this conclusion, , (1963), a case with nearly identical facts to those in Ogden.
- Lynn Marie Sorola Curtis v. Lawrence N. Curtis La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
- Curtis v. Curtis 969 So. 2d 1277 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
-
Scheffler v. Adams and Reese, LLP
950 So. 2d 641
La. 2007
The relationship of joint venture is fiduciary in character, , (1963), and is generally governed by the law of partnership, imposing upon all the participants the obligation of loyalty to the joint concern and of the utmost good faith, fairness, and honesty in their dealings with each other with respect to matters pertaining to the enterprise.
- Gregory Kent Moroux v. Andre F. Toce La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
- Moroux v. Toce 943 So. 2d 1263 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
- Distinguished Riddle v. Simmons 922 So. 2d 1267 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
- Judson v. Davis 916 So. 2d 1106 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
- Coffee Bay Investors v. Wogc Co. 878 So. 2d 665 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
-
Lobell v. Torres
812 So. 2d 678
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
(1963) and Ogden v. Ogden, 93-1413 (La.App.
- Krebs v. Mull 727 So. 2d 564 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
- Woodward v. Steed 680 So. 2d 1320 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
-
Morris v. Friedman
663 So. 2d 19
La. 1995
(1963) (On Rehearing); Ogden v. Ogden, 93-1413 (La.App.
- GNC Ltd. Partnership v. Dooley 657 So. 2d 255 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
- Ogden v. Ogden 643 So. 2d 245 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
- Riddle v. Simmons 589 So. 2d 89 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
- Crain v. Doré 578 So. 2d 555 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
- Rabeaux v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 577 So. 2d 1214 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
-
Petrocana, Inc. v. MARGO INC.
577 So. 2d 274
La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1991
(1963); Little v. Haik, 246 La.
- Riddle v. Simmons 548 So. 2d 113 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
-
Clingan v. Doughty
491 So. 2d 469
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
In sustaining defendants’ exception of no cause of action, the trial court stated: “The Supreme Court has held in Hayes v. Muller [ ], that an agreement affecting mineral leases could not be proved by parole evidence.
-
Abadie v. Oubre
467 So. 2d 1384
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
1st Cir.1978); , (1963); and Ingolia v. Lobrano, 244 La.
- Dunham v. Dunham 467 So. 2d 555 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
-
SPEEDEE OIL CHANGE v. National Union Fire Ins.
444 So. 2d 1304
La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
1885, including future things, art. 1887; "all things that are not forbidden by law may legally become the subject of, or the motive for contracts," , (1963).
- St. Romain v. Midas Exploration, Inc. 430 So. 2d 1354 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
-
Wilkins v. Hogan Drilling Co., Inc.
424 So. 2d 420
La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
(1963); Little v. Haik, 246 La.
- Buckbee on Behalf of Buckbee v. Aweco, Inc. 418 So. 2d 698 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
-
Duncan v. Paragon Resources, Inc.
417 So. 2d 850
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
121 , ; , , Article 2275 has been rigidly enforced against all persons seeking to establish an interest in immovable property by parol evidence.
-
Texas General Petroleum Corp. v. Brown
408 So. 2d 288
La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1981
(1963); American Oil Co. v. Roland J. Robert, Distributor, Inc., (La.
- Porter v. Johnson 408 So. 2d 961 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1981
-
Arnett v. Trace Development Corp.
407 So. 2d 471
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
Art. 2275: “Every transfer of immovable property must be in writing; but if a verbal sale, or other disposition of such property, be made, it shall be good against the vendor, as well as against the vendee, who confesses it when interrogated on oath, provided actual delivery has been made of the immovable property thus sold.” . , (1963); Wampler v. Wampler, 239 La.
- Guy Scroggins, Inc. v. Emerald Exploration 401 So. 2d 680 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
- Sellwood v. Myers 389 So. 2d 424 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
- Slay v. Smith 368 So. 2d 1144 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
-
Bills v. Fruge
360 So. 2d 661
La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1978
241 , (1963); So.2d 191 (1963).
-
Wright v. Wright
346 So. 2d 1293
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
1st Cir. 1962); , (1963); and, (La.App.
-
Fontenot v. Fontenot
339 So. 2d 897
La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
While the joint adventure approach may have some equitable merit, , clearly puts the issue to rest.
- Westenberger v. State, Department of Education 333 So. 2d 264 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
- Miles v. Miles 328 So. 2d 394 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
- Manuel v. Moity 313 So. 2d 278 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
-
De Grey v. Malone
315 So. 2d 795
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
As to plaintiff’s , , in which the following was said: “The important question then is: Can the plaintiffs show such an agreement by parol?
-
Hayes v. Muller
243 So. 2d 830
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
3 Cir. 1962); , (1963); Hayes v. Muller, 248 La.
- Brouillette v. National Remodelers & Rebuilders, Inc. 239 So. 2d 375 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
- Prentice v. Amax Petroleum Corporation 220 So. 2d 783 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
- Robichaux v. Pool 209 So. 2d 77 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
- Dahl v. National Bank of Commerce in New Orleans 196 So. 2d 578 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967