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.

  • Knippers v. Lambard 620 So. 2d 1368 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
    Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1967).
  • Taylor v. David New Operating Co., Inc. 619 So. 2d 1251 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
    Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., (1st Cir.1981) The Taylors also attempt to formulate their action as one based on unjust enrichment or for the recovery of a corporeal movable or its value under Civil Code articles 2301 and 2312.
  • Taylor v. Smith 619 So. 2d 881 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
    Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., (1st Cir.1981).
  • Wiedemann & Fransen, APLC v. Highlands Insurance Group 617 So. 2d 105 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
    Wiedemann & Fransen citing Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1967), argues that if it is not the proper plaintiff at law, then in the absence of a legal remedy it would be entitled to rely on the actio de in rem verso, or unjust enrichment.
  • Firmin v. Denham Springs Floor Covering 595 So. 2d 1164 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
    [3] The trial court found no merit in this defense, finding that the ten-year prescription for quasi-contracts, rather than the one-year tort prescription, was applicable to these facts, citing Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1967), as its authority.
  • SOUTH CENT. BELL TELEPHONE v. Rouse Co. 590 So. 2d 801 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
    4th Cir. 1981); Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1967).
  • Scott v. Wesley 589 So. 2d 26 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
    Unjust Enrichment The root principle of an unjustified enrichment, expressly recognized in Louisiana as a quasi-contractual action, in Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1967), is that the plaintiff suffers an economic detriment for which he should not be responsible, while the defendant receives an economic benefit for which he has not paid.
  • McPhearson v. Shell Oil Co. 584 So. 2d 373 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
    Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1967).
  • New Orleans Public Service, Inc. v. Vanzant 580 So. 2d 533 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
    Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1967).
  • Illinois Cent. Gulf R. v. Deaton, Inc. 581 So. 2d 714 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
    Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1967).
  • Guillory v. Hayes 576 So. 2d 1136 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1991
    Edmonston v. A-Second Mortgage Company of Slidell, Inc., Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1967); V & S (La.
  • Newt Brown, Contractor, Inc. v. Michael Builders, Inc. 569 So. 2d 288 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
    Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1967) states the prerequisites for a successful *292 action under the theory of unjust enrichment: (1) there must be an enrichment, (2) there must be an impoverishment, (3) there must be a connection between the enrichment and resulting impoverishment, (4) there must be an absence of "justification" o
  • Taylor v. Woodpecker Corp. 562 So. 2d 888 La. 1990
    Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1967).
  • Barton Land Co. v. Dutton 541 So. 2d 382 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
    In Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1967), our Supreme Court, discussing the nature of the quasi-contractual obligation, stated: "There is a general concept of quasi-contractual obligations; it is a concept based upon the principle that where there is an unjust enrichment of one at the expense or impoverishment of another, then the valu
  • Morphy, Makofsky & Masson, Inc. v. CANAL PLACE 2000 538 So. 2d 569 La. 1989
    Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1967)
  • FPS, INC. v. Continental Contractors, Inc. 537 So. 2d 831 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
  • Beacham v. Hardy Outdoor Advertising 520 So. 2d 1086 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
    The prerequisites to a suit under a theory of unjust enrichment were set forth in Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , : "There are now five prerequisites to the successful suit by actio de in rem verso: (1) there must be an enrichment, (2) there must be an impoverishment, (3) there must be a connection between the enrichment and resulting impoverishment, (4) there must be an absence of "justification" or "cau
  • Henry R. Liles v. Bourgeois 517 So. 2d 1078 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
    Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1967).
  • Charrier v. Bell 496 So. 2d 601 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    The actio de in rem verso, explained by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1967) and derived from the similar French action, is influenced greatly by French Civil Code articles from which our own are copied.
  • Safeco Ins. Co. v. Farm Bur. Ins. Companies 490 So. 2d 565 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
    Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1967).
  • Scafide v. C. Itoh Industrial Machinery, Inc. 483 So. 2d 151 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1967).
  • Vega v. Off The Wall Racquet & Health Club, Inc. 481 So. 2d 153 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    at 484 citing La.Civ.Code art. 21 1965, 2292 et seq; Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1968); Capitano v. Huber, Hunt and Nichols, Inc., (La.App.
  • V & S PLANTING CO. v. Red River Waterway Com'n 472 So. 2d 331 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
    The court in Edmonston , citing their previous decision in Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1967), set forth the following 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, certain limitations are applicable to the actio de in rem ve
  • Cahn v. Cahn 468 So. 2d 1176 La. 1985
    Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1967); Edmonston v. A-Second Mortgage Company of Slidell, Inc.
  • Busby v. Parish Nat. Bank 464 So. 2d 374 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1967).
  • Trigg v. Camper Village, Inc. 467 So. 2d 17 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    See Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1967); Edward Levy Metals, Inc. v. New Orleans Public Belt Railroad, 243 La.
  • Bazile v. Arnaud Coffee Co. 465 So. 2d 111 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
  • Primvest, Inc. v. Dugas 460 So. 2d 718 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
    Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1967).
  • Kirkpatrick v. Young 456 So. 2d 622 La. 1984
    Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1967).
  • First Nat. Bank of Shreveport v. Crawford 455 So. 2d 1209 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
    Edmonston v. A-Second Mortgage Co. of Slidell, Inc., Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1967).
  • Roberson Ad. Service, Inc. v. Winnfield Life Ins. Co. 453 So. 2d 662 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1984
    The trial judge provided in his written reasons for judgment, , that where there is no express law, the judge is bound to decide according to equity.
  • AV SMITH CONST. CO. v. Maryland Cas. Co. 450 So. 2d 39 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
    624, (1967) the Supreme Court listed the following elements necessary for recovery under unjust enrichment: (1) An enrichment.
  • Banks v. Pearson 446 So. 2d 545 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    Planiol, Traite Elementaire DeDroit Civil, T.2, n°812, N°813 (8th ed. 1939).” Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1967) (Footnote omitted).
  • Vicari v. Melancon 446 So. 2d 899 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    The criteria for a successful prosecution of an action in unjust enrichment were established by the case of Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1967).
  • Allan E. Amundson, Inc. v. Hoppmeyer 442 So. 2d 1254 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1983
    The five requisites to sustain this action, are an impoverishment, an enrichment, a connection between the impoverishment and the enrichment, absence of justification or cause for the enrichment or impoverishment, and a lack of any other remedy at law, Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1967).
  • Pan American Import Co., Inc. v. Buck 440 So. 2d 182 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
    Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1967).
  • Creely v. Leisure Living, Inc. 437 So. 2d 816 La. 1983
    Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1967).
  • Hagberg v. John Bailey Contractor 435 So. 2d 580 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
    In Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , the Louisiana Supreme Court recognized an action for unjustified enrichment.
  • Cabral v. CIB Investments, Inc. 433 So. 2d 897 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1983
    Rehearing Denied, the Louisiana Supreme Court made the following declaration: In all civil matters, where there is no express law, the judge is bound to decide according to equity.
  • Chalstrom v. Desselles on Behalf of Desselles 433 So. 2d 866 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
    See also Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1967), although the action de in rem verso there enforced may not be available against one's solidary co-obligors.
  • McManus v. Galaxy Carpet Mills, Inc. 433 So. 2d 854 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
    In Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1967), our Supreme Court defined the basis for indemnity as a cause arising out of implied or quasi contract for unjust enrichment.
  • Dusenbery v. McMoran Exploration Co. 433 So. 2d 268 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    539 (1922), Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1967).
  • Pasquier v. Ewing 430 So. 2d 724 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
    See Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1967); (La.App.
  • Slocum v. Daigre 424 So. 2d 1074 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
    However, as noted by the Supreme Court in Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1967), the action for indemnity based upon implied or quasi contract is more properly characterized as an action or claim for unjust enrichment.
  • New Hotel Monteleone v. First Nat. Bank 423 So. 2d 1305 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
    Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1968) (Per Summers, J. with two justices concurring and two justices concurring in result.)
  • Creely v. Leisure Living, Inc. 423 So. 2d 1224 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1967).
  • Williams v. Coe 417 So. 2d 426 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    See also, Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1967).
  • Succession of Skye 417 So. 2d 1221 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
    Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1967), stated that: "There are now five prerequisites to the successful suit by actio de in rem verso: (1) there must be an enrichment, (2) there must be an impoverishment, (3) there must be a connection between the enrichment and resulting impoverishment, (4) there must be an absence of `justificatio
  • Marceaux v. Town of Lake Arthur 415 So. 2d 610 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    3rd Cir. 1977); writ refused Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1967).
  • Johnson v. HOSPITAL AFFILIATES INTERN., INC. 416 So. 2d 207 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1967).