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.

  • Bewley Furniture Co., Inc. v. Maryland Casualty Co. 285 So. 2d 216 La. 1973
    539 (1922); Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1967); Joyner v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 259 La.
  • Edmonston v. A-SECOND MORTGAGE CO. OF SLIDELL, INC. 273 So. 2d 707 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
    Our Supreme Court in the case of Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , , outlined the requisites of the unjust enrichment theory as follows: "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 impoverishme
  • Wooten v. Wimberly 272 So. 2d 303 La. 1973
    E. g., Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1968).
  • State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. v. Cities Service Oil Co. 251 So. 2d 201 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
    860 , (1963); and Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1967).
  • Stevens, Inc. v. Herrick 249 So. 2d 246 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
    See: Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1967).
  • Hanszen v. Cocke 246 So. 2d 200 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
    The doctrine that one should not be unjustly enriched at the expense of another was recognized in the case of Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1967).
  • Kegler's Inc. v. Levy 239 So. 2d 450 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1970
    854, 862 and 2164 (and on its failure to treat as indemnity, see Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., 1967, , ), nevertheless the ratio of Lewis itself was that the petition lacked allegations essential to any cause of action other than redhibition.
  • Joslyn v. Manship 238 So. 2d 20 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
    The Louisiana Supreme Court outlined five prerequisites to a right to recover in quasi-contract in Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , , to-wit: “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 improverishment, (4) there must be an absence of ‘justification’ or
  • Truxillo v. Gentilly Medical Building, Inc. 225 So. 2d 488 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1969
    ction de in rem verso, namely whether some basis exists to conclude that treating both codebtors as equally responsible (as between themselves) would constitute an unjust enrichment of one at the expense of the other (to the extent that the one, on that basis, should bear all the damages, yet by contribution would bear only half, at the expense of the other), see Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., , (1967).