DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Kuhn v. Stan A. Plauche Real Estate Company, 185 So. 2d 210.

35 citing documents.

  • Pollard v. Schiff 161 So. 3d 48 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    2056-2057; U.S. Abatement Corp. v. Mobil Exploration & Producing U.S., 79 F.3d 393 , 400 (5th Cir.1996) (“Under Louisiana law, ambiguous clauses are construed against the drafter.”); Kuhn v. Stan A. Plauche Real Estate Co., Inc. , (1966) (Any “ambiguity or contradiction which existed in the language of the contract must be construed against the party who prepared the contract.”) If the ambiguity “arises from lack of a necessary explanation that one party should have given ...
  • Clovelly Oil Co. v. Midstates Petroleum Co. 112 So. 3d 187 La. 2013
  • Clovelly Oil Co., LLC v. Midstates Petroleum Co., LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
    Kuhn v. Stan A. Plauche Real Estate Co., Inc., (1966).
  • Clovelly Oil Co., LLC v. Midstates Petroleum Co., LLC 95 So. 3d 1168 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    Kuhn v. Stan A. Planche Real Estate Co., Inc., , , (1966).
  • Foshee v. Georgia Gulf Chemicals & Vinyls, L.L.C. 42 So. 3d 346 La. 2010
    2056-57; U.S. Abatement Corp. v. Mobil Exploration & Producing U.S., 79 F.3d 393 , 400 (5th Cir.1996)("Under Louisiana law, ambiguous clauses are construed against the drafter"); , (1966)(Any "ambiguity or contradiction which existed in the language of the contract must be construed against the party who prepared the contract.") If the ambiguity "arises from lack of a necessary explanation that one party should have given...
  • Criticized Barrera v. Ciolino 636 So. 2d 218 La. 1994
  • Lawrence v. Wynne 598 So. 2d 1293 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
    Kenner Industries v. Sewell Plastics, Inc., Aguillard’s Enterprises, writ denied
  • Pittman v. Pomeroy 552 So. 2d 983 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
    (1966); Kenner Industries, Inc. v. Sewell Plastics, Inc., Fullerton v. Scarecrow Club, Inc., (La.App.
  • Bellina v. Graybar 532 So. 2d 847 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
  • Merrill Lynch Realty, Inc. v. Williams 526 So. 2d 380 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
  • Bonneau v. Blalock 525 So. 2d 562 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
    : “Under elementary principles of interpretation of contracts, the written portions prevail over the printed portions when the two are in conflict; ...” Further, paragraph 21 does not purport to amend the remainder of printed paragraph 5 which sets forth the requisites and agreement of the parties for exercis
  • Finishers Drywall, Inc. v. B & G REALTY, INC. 516 So. 2d 420 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
  • Kenner Industries, Inc. v. Sewell Plastics, Inc. 451 So. 2d 557 La. 1984
  • Succession of Magnani 450 So. 2d 972 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
    Art. 1958; Carpenter v. Leon E. Werntz & Assoc., Inc., (La.App.
  • Lanier Business Products, Inc. v. Linch International Trucks, Inc. 415 So. 2d 491 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    1957 and 1958; , (1966); (La.App.
  • Dowty v. Blue Cross of La. 410 So. 2d 332 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    Plaintiffs urge that if their oral contract was ambiguous it should be construed in their favor and against the party “from whom the words proceed.” , (1966); Housing Authority v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Md., Inc., (La.App.
  • Jones v. Gentilly Dodge, Inc. 397 So. 2d 849 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
    725 , (1952); , (1966); Executive House Bldg., Inc. v. Optimum Systems, Inc., (La.App.
  • Jefferson Bank and Trust Co. v. Stamatiou 384 So. 2d 388 La. 1980
  • First Nat. Bank of Crowley v. Green Garden Processing Company, Inc. 387 So. 2d 1070 La. 1980
    (1966); and La.Civ.Code art. 1958.
  • Fontenot v. Monsanto Co. 363 So. 2d 1309 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
    art. 1958 (1870); Kuhn v. Stan A. Plauche *1311 Real Estate Company, , (1966); Mills v. Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York, 226 F.Supp.
  • Marine Services, Inc. v. A-1 INDUSTRIES 355 So. 2d 625 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
  • Schackai v. Lagreco 350 So. 2d 1244 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    4th Cir. 1965), reversed on other grounds, , ; .
  • Carpenter v. Leon E. Werntz & Associates, Inc. 345 So. 2d 1018 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    1957; , (1966); Edwards v. Terminix 57, Inc.
  • Texhoma Contractors v. SHIPBLDG. CORP. 337 So. 2d 584 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1976
    [2] , ; Edwards v. Terminix 57, Inc., La.App., .
  • Cramer v. Guercio 331 So. 2d 550 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
  • Monsur v. Thompson 300 So. 2d 655 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1974
    1957, 1958; , (1966); Muse v. Metropolitan Life Ins.
  • Borne v. Magnolia School 260 So. 2d 793 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
  • Centanni v. AK Roy, Inc. 258 So. 2d 219 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1972
  • Bergeron v. Parish Lumber Home Improvements, Inc. 255 So. 2d 163 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
    (Record, p. 371) Be that as it may, it is well established that the handwritten specifications and obligations of the contract appearing on the front prevail over any printed provisions, , (1966), and the handwritten portions of the contract substantiate the trial court’s conclusions that defendant was indeed obligated to perform the work contracted for in a workmanlike manner, which would require that the joining of the floors be more evenly accomplished so as to render same not as noti
  • Wendel v. Dixon Real Estate Company 232 So. 2d 791 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1970
    4th Cir. 1965, reversed on other grounds, , ); (La.App.
  • Castellon v. Nations 230 So. 2d 675 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
    Kuhn v. Stan A. Plauche Real Estate Company, Inc., La.App., , (Reversed on other grounds, , 185 So.2d210).
  • EE Rabalais & Son, Inc. v. United Bonding Ins. Co. 226 So. 2d 528 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1969
    But even if the agreement is ambiguous, it should be interpreted in the light of the common intention of the parties, Article 1950, and it further must be interpreted against the party (United) who has incurred the obligation, Article 1957, and who has prepared the agreement, Articles 1957, 1958, , .
  • Hanks v. Gulf States Utilities Company 221 So. 2d 249 La. 1969
    1957 and 1958; , (1966).
  • Plan Investments, Inc. v. Carmon 215 So. 2d 563 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
    See Louisiana Paving Co. v. Louisiana Department of Highways (La.App., 1967) , and Kuhn v. Stan A. Plauche Real Estate Company (1966) , .
  • Louisiana Paving Co. v. Louisiana Department of Highways 205 So. 2d 445 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
    See Kuhn vs. Stan A. Plauche Real Estate Co., [ ] 1966, ; Gibbs vs. Giering, [La.App.]