DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., 205 So. 2d 422.

159 citing documents.

  • H&o Investments, Llc v. Parish Of Jefferson, Through Its Parish President, Cynthia Lee Sheng And Opterra Solutions, Inc. … La. 2025
    One of the prerequisites to establish a cause of action for unjust enrichment is “an absence of justification or cause for the enrichment or impoverishment .” Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., 205 So.
  • Quaternary Resource Investigations, LLC v. Ronald David Phillips and Angela Phillips La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2020
    See Minyard v. Curtis Prod., Inc., ( La.
  • Leblanc v. Thibodeaux 256 So. 3d 1071 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
    *1079 Minyard v. Curtis Prod., Inc.
  • Randy Leblanc v. Fred Alan Thibodeaux La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
    Minyard v. Curtis Prod., Inc., So.2d 10 422 (La.1967).
  • Taxicab Insurance Store, LLC v. American Service Insurance Co. 224 So. 3d 451 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
    ves from the principle of equity which forbids enrichment at the expense of another, and since it has been regulated by no provision of the enacted law, its exercise is subject to no precise rules; it is sufficient that the plaintiff allege and undertake to prove that as a result of some sacrifice or act on his part he has procured an advantage to the defendant.’ Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., -51 , (La.
  • USA Disaster Recovery, Inc. v. St. Tammany Parish Government 145 So. 3d 235 La. 2013
    1993); Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1967).
  • Marseilles Homeowners Condominium Ass'n v. Broadmoor, L.L.C. 111 So. 3d 1099 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    Civil Code art. 3499 (“Unless otherwise provided by legislation, a personal action is subject to a liberative prescription of ten years.”); see also Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1967) (unjust enrichment claim is prescribed by ten years reckoning from day judgment was obtained against the impoverished party).
  • E. Smith Plumbing, Inc. v. Manuel 88 So. 3d 1209 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    There are five elements to recovery under this theory including the “absence of a remedy at law.” Roberson, 453 So.2d at 665 (citing Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1967) and G. Woodward Jackson Co., (La.App.
  • Redar, LLC v. Warren D. Rush La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
    Co. of Slidell, Inc., : The Minyard [v. Iowa Production, ] decision set forth five prerequisites which must be satisfied to successfully invoke the action: 1) There must be an enrichment; 2) there must be an impoverishment; 3) there must be a connection between the enrichment and the impoverishment; 4) there must be an absence of ‘justificat
  • Redar, LLC v. Warren Rush La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
    Co. of Slidell, Inc., : The Minyard [v. Iowa Production, ] decision set forth five prerequisites which must be satisfied to successfully invoke the action: 1) There must be an enrichment; 2) there must be an impoverishment; 3) there must be a connection between the enrichment and the impoverishment; 4) there must be an absence of ‘justificat
  • Redar, LLC v. Warren D. Rush La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
    Co. of Slidell, Inc., : The Minyard [v. Iowa Production, ] decision set forth five prerequisites which must be satisfied to successfully invoke the action: 1) There must be an enrichment; 2) there must be an impoverishment; 3) there must be a connection between the enrichment and the impoverishment; 4) there must be an absence of ‘justificat
  • REDAR, LLC v. Rush 51 So. 3d 859 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
    Co. of Slidell, Inc., : The Minyard [v. Curtis Products, Inc., , ] decision set forth five prerequisites which must be satisfied to successfully invoke the action: 1) There must be an enrichment; 2) there must be an impoverishment; 3) there must be a connection between the enrichment and the impoverishment; 4) there must be an absence of `justification' or
  • Nature Conservancy v. Upland Properties, LLC 48 So. 3d 1257 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    The Louisiana Supreme Court in Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1967), set forth five prerequisites a plaintiff must prove to prevail under the theory of unjust enrichment: 1) an enrichment; 2) an impoverishment; 3) a connection between the enrichment and the impoverishment; 4) an absence of justification or cause for the enrichment and the impoverishmen
  • Gallant Investments, Ltd. v. Illinois Central Railroad 7 So. 3d 12 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    The quasi-contractual action for unjust enrichment, or actio de in rem verso, was first defined in our jurisprudence in the seminal case of Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1968).
  • David K. Rougeou v. Muriel Rougeou La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
    Minyard v. Curtis Prods., Inc., So.2d 422 (1967).
  • Rougeou v. Rougeou 971 So. 2d 466 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
    Minyard v. Curtis Prods., Inc., , (1967).
  • QUILIO & ASSOC. v. Plaquemines Parish Gov't 931 So. 2d 1129 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
    Minyard v. Curtis Prods., Inc., , (1967).
  • 84 Lumber Company v. Hon. Allen M. Babineaux La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    Our Lady of the Lake, supra, citing Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., So.2d 422 (1967); and La.
  • 84 Lumber Co. v. Babineaux 886 So. 2d 693 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
    Our Lady of the Lake, supra, citing Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., So.2d 422 (1967); and La.
  • Corbello v. Iowa Production 850 So. 2d 686 La. 2003
    Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1967).
  • STATE, DEPT. OF TRANSP. & DEV. v. Todd 834 So. 2d 1114 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
    Minyard v. Curtis Prods., Inc., , (1967).
  • Hesse v. Champ Service Line 828 So. 2d 687 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    In Minyard v. Curtis Prods., Inc., , (1967), this court considered the theoretical basis for recovery in an action for indemnity.
  • BAMBURG STEEL BLDS., INC. v. Lawrence Gen. Corp. 817 So. 2d 427 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
    Co. of Slidell, Inc., Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1967).
  • COASTAL ENVIRON. SPECIALISTS, INC. v. Chem-Lig International, Inc. 818 So. 2d 12 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    In Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1967), the Louisiana Supreme Court set forth five prerequisites that must be satisfied to successfully invoke the action, noting that there must be: (1) an enrichment, (2) an impoverishment, (3) a connection between the enrichment and the impoverishment, (4) an absence of justification or ca
  • Tandy v. Pecan Shoppe of Minden, Inc. 785 So. 2d 111 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
    Co. of Slidell, Inc., Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1967).
  • Commercial Prop. Dev. Corp. v. State Teachers Ret. Sys. 808 So. 2d 534 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    In Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1967), the Louisiana Supreme Court set forth five prerequisites that must be satisfied to successfully invoke the action; there must be: (1) an enrichment, (2) an impoverishment, (3) a connection between the enrichment and the impoverishment, (4) an absence of justification or cause for the
  • MKM, L.L.C. v. Rebstock Marine Transportation, Inc. 773 So. 2d 776 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    In their brief to this court, Rebstock Marine and Rebco rely on Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , as support for their argument that plaintiffs would be ‘unjustly enriched’ if they were permitted to acquire the M/V BOB R. for the sum of $50,000 .00.
  • " WE THE PEOPLE" PARALEGAL SERV. v. Watley 766 So. 2d 744 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    Baker v. Maclay Properties Co., supra ; Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1967).
  • Schiro-Del Bianco Enterprises v. Nsl 765 So. 2d 1087 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
    Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1967).
  • Caldwell Wholesale Co. v. Central Oil & Supply Corp. 761 So. 2d 684 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    Baker v. Maclay Properties Co., 94-1529 (La.1/17/95), ; Edmonston v. A-Second Mortgage Co. of Slidell, Inc., Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1967).
  • Yarnell Ice Cream Co. v. Allen 759 So. 2d 1066 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    Our Lady of the Lake, supra, citing Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1967); and La.
  • OUR LADY LAKE REG. MED. CENTER v. Helms 754 So. 2d 1049 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc. ., , 205 So.2d.
  • Nassif v. Sunrise Homes, Inc. 739 So. 2d 183 La. 1999
    In Minyard v. Curtis Prods., Inc., , (1967), this court considered the theoretical basis for recovery in an action for indemnity.
  • Simon v. Arnold 727 So. 2d 699 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    The court in Edmonston cited its previous decision in Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , setting forth five requirements that a plaintiff must meet in order to- prevail in an action for unjust enrichment: To deter courts from turning to equity to remedy every unjust displacement of wealth with unregulated discretion, cei-tain limitations are applicable to the actio de in rem v.e
  • Carriere v. Bank of Louisiana 702 So. 2d 648 La. 1997
    LA.CIV.CODE art. 2298; Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1967); Willis v. Ventrella, 95-1669 (La.
  • Plaquemines Parish v. Delta Development 688 So. 2d 169 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
    Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc.
  • Phipps v. Chesson 682 So. 2d 935 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1967).
  • Gegenheimer v. Cajun Painting, Inc. 689 So. 2d 457 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    La.Civ.Code art. 2298; Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1967).
  • Giordano v. Riverbend Rentals Co. 674 So. 2d 444 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    (1967); see also Cheryl L. Martin, Comment, 69 Tul.L.Rev.
  • Willis v. Ventrella 674 So. 2d 991 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
  • Matheny v. Greer 668 So. 2d 1359 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., [ ] (1967).
  • Deubler Elec. Inc. v. Knockers of Louisiana 665 So. 2d 481 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
    the Supreme Court restated the requisites for an action in unjust enrichment thusly: This court in Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., set forth the required elements for a showing of unjust enrichment.
  • Gray v. McCormick 663 So. 2d 480 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
    Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1967).
  • Kilpatrick v. Kilpatrick 660 So. 2d 182 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
    art. 3499; , (1967); (La.App.
  • Transportation Insurance Co. v. Leavines 656 So. 2d 720 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
    In Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1968), the Supreme Court of Louisiana listed five elements a petitioner must prove in an unjust enrichment case: (1) defendant was enriched, (2) plaintiff was impoverished, (3)there is a connection between the defendant’s enrichment and the plaintiffs impoverishment, (4) there was no legal cause or ju
  • Baker v. MacLay Properties Co. 648 So. 2d 888 La. 1995
    Edwards *897 v. Conforto, Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1967).
  • Larose-Perniciaro Corp. v. St. Bernard Parish Water & Sewerage Commission 648 So. 2d 432 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
    In Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , the Louisiana Supreme Court established the following prerequisites before there can be a recovery for unjust enrichment: (1) there must be an enrichment; (2) there must be an impoverishment; (3) there must be a connection between the enrichment and the impoverishment; (4) there must be an a
  • Fogleman v. Cajun Bag & Supply Co. 638 So. 2d 706 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
    Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1967).
  • Edwards v. Conforto 636 So. 2d 901 La. 1994
    In 1967 our jurisprudence recognized an action for unjust enrichment in Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1967).
  • Shatoska v. International Grain Transfer, Inc. 634 So. 2d 897 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
    Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1967).