DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

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.

  • G. Woodward Jackson Co., Inc. v. Crispens 414 So. 2d 855 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
    Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc.
  • Laspopoulos v. Chaisson 413 So. 2d 248 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
    See Edmonston, supra, and Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1967).
  • Porter v. Johnson 408 So. 2d 961 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1981
    1974); Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1967).
  • North Forest Homeowners' Ass'n v. Homecraft Corp. 407 So. 2d 450 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    Our Supreme Court dealt with such a cause of action in Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., [ ]
  • Vizinat v. Reed 406 So. 2d 263 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    CIVIL LAW ACTION FOR UNJUST ENRICHMENT Defendants cite the decision of the court in Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1967), which sets forth the different elements of the civil law action de in rem verso, or unjust enrichment.
  • STATE ETC. v. City of Pineville 403 So. 2d 49 La. 1981
    See, e. g., Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1967) (unjust enrichment); Gaude v. Gaude, 28 La.Ann.
  • Boagni v. STATE THROUGH DEPT. OF TRANSP. AND DEV. 399 So. 2d 813 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
    Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1967)
  • Kent v. De La Cruz 400 So. 2d 689 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    See Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1967).
  • Our Lady of Lake Med. Ctr. v. Cropper 401 So. 2d 403 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc.
  • Vandervoort v. Levy 396 So. 2d 480 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
    21, 1965, 2292 et seq., Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1968); Capitano v. Huber, Hunt & Nichols, Inc., (La.App.
  • Marceaux v. Town of Lake Arthur 392 So. 2d 783 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
    writ refused, Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1967).
  • Vappie v. American Home Insurance 392 So. 2d 188 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    In deciding the case in favor of plaintiff the trial judge reasoned that to do otherwise would violate the principle of unjust enrichment as discussed in Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1967).
  • Ramsey Construction Co. v. Bunch 393 So. 2d 199 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    The landmark case of Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1967), established five prerequisites to “unjust enrichment” recovery: (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 “cause” for the enrichment
  • Richard v. Southwest Louisiana Hospital Ass'n 383 So. 2d 83 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
    Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., La., , (1967) says: `.
  • LOUISIANA & SO. LIFE INS. CO. v. New Orleans SS 384 So. 2d 594 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
    Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc.
  • Louisiana & Southern Life Insurance Co. v. New Orleans Steamship Ass'n, International Longshoremen's Ass'n (AF of L-CIO) Welfare … 384 So. 2d 594 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc.
  • Don Coleman Construction Co. v. Mid-South Mortgage, Inc. 368 So. 2d 758 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    See also Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1967), discussing the elements of unjust enrichment.
  • Flowers v. US Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 367 So. 2d 107 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1979
    Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1968).
  • Agency Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Fiberglass Insulators, Inc. 367 So. 2d 66 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    (See Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , [1967].)
  • Towne v. Towne 364 So. 2d 627 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
  • Spiller v. Herpel 357 So. 2d 572 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
    Oil Purchasers, Edmonston v. A-Second Mortgage Company of Slidell, Inc., Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1967); (La.App.
  • Capitano v. Huber, Hunt & Nichols, Inc. 359 So. 2d 308 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
    Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1967); Edmonston v. A-Second Mortgage Company of Slidell, Inc.
  • Loyacano v. Loyacano 358 So. 2d 304 La. 1978
    [9] Professor Yiannopoulos' random selection of cases provides an insight into the jurisprudence under Article 21 of the Civil Code: "* * * In Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc. [ , (1967)], the Supreme Court took a decisive step toward generalization of the remedy of unjust enrichment in Louisiana, relying expressly on Articles 21 and 1965 of the Civil Code.
  • Abbeville Lumber Co. v. Richard 350 So. 2d 1292 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
    Recovery under the theory of unjust enrichment was recognized by our Supreme Court in the case of Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc.
  • Aetna Life & Cas. Co. v. Dotson 346 So. 2d 762 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    Local 1418, AFL-CIO, 496 F.2d 400 (5th Cir. 1974); Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1967); Kramer v. Freeman, 198 La.
  • Acme Refrig. of Baton Rouge, Inc. v. Caljoan, Inc. 346 So. 2d 743 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    These limitations, as set forth in Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1967), are: an enrichment, an impoverishment, a causal connection between the enrichment and the impoverishment, no justification or legal cause for the enrichment/impoverishment, and no other available remedy at law.
  • Blair v. Diaz 342 So. 2d 1237 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1977
    The owner's claim is, at best, one in the nature of unjust enrichment, an action de in rem verso (see Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., 1967, , ).
  • Daspit v. City of Alexandria 342 So. 2d 683 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
    In Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1967) the Supreme Court listed the following elements necessary for recovery under unjust enrichment: (1) An enrichment.
  • Diamond Electrical Co. v. Unionamerica Mortgage & Equity Trust 345 So. 2d 119 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1967).
  • Olympia Co., Inc. v. GERVAIS F. FAVROT CO., INC. 342 So. 2d 1275 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1977
    See Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1967); V-8 Taxi Cab Service
  • Leachman v. El Dorado Poultry Co. 342 So. 2d 1224 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1967).
  • Renaudin v. Zapata Development Corporation 339 So. 2d 942 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1977
    The concept and application of the unjust enrichment remedy is discussed at length in Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1967).
  • Lyons v. City of Shreveport 339 So. 2d 466 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1977
    The requirements for recovery under unjust enrichment were enunciated by the Supreme Court in Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1967) and again applied in Edmonston v. A-Second Mortgage Co. of Slidell, Inc.
  • Jones v. Louisiana Dept. of Highways 338 So. 2d 338 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
    3rd Cir. 1964); Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1967).
  • Patin v. Jumonville 336 So. 2d 259 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    Articles 1963— 1965, 2292-2294, Civil Code; Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1967).
  • Oil Purchasers, Inc. v. Kuehling 334 So. 2d 420 La. 1976
    The demand of plaintiffs adequately meets the five prerequisites of actio de in rem verso recognized in Louisiana in Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1967)
  • TL James & Co., Inc. v. Montgomery 332 So. 2d 834 La. 1976
    See (concerning another area of law) Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1968).
  • Sylvester v. Dupre 333 So. 2d 447 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1967); Edmonston v. A-Second Mortgage Company of Slidell, Inc.
  • State Ex Rel. Guste v. Estate of Himbert 327 So. 2d 698 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    Articles 21, 1965, 2292, 2301, 2311, Civil Code; Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., *700 , (1967); Actio de in Rem Verso in Louisiana: Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., 43 Tul.L.Rev.
  • Landesman v. Ford Motor Co. 331 So. 2d 106 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    The plaintiff, nevertheless, argues that a quasi contract existed, founded on the principle of unjust enrichment, i. e., de in rem verso, citing Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1967).
  • Cameron Crew Boats, Inc. v. Twin Disc, Inc. 325 So. 2d 684 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    When the law of the land, and that which the parties have made for themselves by their contract, are silent, courts must apply these principles to determine what ought to be incidents to a contract, which are required by equity.” See Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1967); Actio de in Rem Verso in Louisiana: Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., 43 Tul.L.Rev.
  • Oil Purchasers, Inc. v. Kuehling 321 So. 2d 17 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
    Articles 2292-2294 and 1964, 1965, and Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1967).
  • Cowley v. Logan 324 So. 2d 500 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
    On appeal, Cowley contends that Logan was “unjustly enriched” at Cowley’s expense or impoverishment and that restitution should be ordered' on the authority of Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1968).
  • V-8 Taxi Cab Service, Inc. v. Hayes 322 So. 2d 442 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1975
    In Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1967), [2] the Louisiana Supreme Court set out the prerequisites for recovery in unjust enrichment.
  • United States Fire Insurance Company v. Lawson 317 So. 2d 217 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1975
    Yet tort prescription was applied against the insurer's claim in Brown , and Brown was cited without any hint of disagreement in the plurality opinion in Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., 1968, , 430 (on whose de in rem verso theory our insurer relies).
  • Mire v. Travelers Insurance Co. 318 So. 2d 93 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
    See Edmonston v. A-Second Mortgage Co. of Slidell, Inc., and Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1967)—unjust enrichment; In Re Interstate Trust & Banking Co., 235 La.
  • Hoover v. Hoover 313 So. 2d 358 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1975
    In support of her argument that she is entitled to relief against Dodt on the theory of unjust enrichment, and Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , 205 So.
  • Coleman v. Bossier City 305 So. 2d 444 La. 1974
    See, for essentials of unjust enrichment action in Louisiana: Edmonston v. A-Second Mortgage Company of Slidell, Inc., Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1968).
  • Edmonston v. A-Second Mortgage Co. of Slidell, Inc. 289 So. 2d 116 La. 1974
    This Court set out the requirements to be met before the actio de in rem verso was applicable in Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1967).
  • Explained Brignac v. Boisdore 288 So. 2d 31 La. 1973
    It was first clearly enunciated in our law by the decision of this Court in Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1968).