Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite American Bank & Trust Co. v. Trinity Universal Insurance, 205 So. 2d 35.

69 citing documents.

In Re: Marshall Legacy Foundation La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2024
Co., (citations omitted).
Amerifactors Financial Group, LLC v. Dunham Price Group, LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2023
429 Bourbon Street, LLC v. RMDR Investments, Inc. 230 So. 3d 256 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
& Dev., ( , (1967)).
Patriot Contstruction & Equipment,llc v. Rage Logistics, LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
Patriot Construction & Equipment, LLC v. Rage Logistics, LLC 215 So. 3d 844 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
MB Industries, LLC v. CNA Insurance Co. 74 So. 3d 1173 La. 2011
Miller Plastering, Inc. v. Amigo Building Corporation La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
our Supreme Court explained equitable estoppel: Equitable estoppel may be defined as the effect of the voluntary conduct of a party whereby he is precluded from asserting rights against another who has justifiably relied upon such conduct and changed his
Miller Plastering, Inc. v. Amigo Building Corp. 20 So. 3d 1190 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
*1194 (1967), our Supreme Court explained equitable estoppel: Equitable estoppel may be defined as the effect of the voluntary conduct of a party whereby he is precluded from asserting rights against another who has justifiably relied upon such conduct and changed his position so that he will suffer inj
Dupont v. Hebert 984 So. 2d 800 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
Zeringue v. Wireways, Inc. 714 So. 2d 13 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
Zeno v. Truck-N-Trailer Equipment Co. 685 So. 2d 560 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
Morris v. Friedman 663 So. 2d 19 La. 1995
& Dev., ( , (1967)).
Hammons v. ABB CE SERVICES, INC. 671 So. 2d 370 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Succession of Hirt 612 So. 2d 1054 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
Co., , (1967); Bellsouth Advertising & (La.App.
Younce v. Loudrake 580 So. 2d 521 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
Robbins Tire & Rubber v. Winnfield Retread 577 So. 2d 1189 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
State v. Smith 571 So. 2d 746 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
App. 1st Cir.), affirmed , (1967); First Fed'l Sav.
Dye v. Ipik Door Co., Inc. 570 So. 2d 477 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1990
Bayou Self Road Development v. Jefferson Parish Council 567 So. 2d 679 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
Co., , : Equitable estoppel may be defined as the effect of the voluntary conduct of a party whereby he is precluded from asserting rights against another who has justifiably relied upon such conduct and changed his position so that he will suffer injury if the former is allowed to repudiate the condu
Bellsouth Advertising & Publishing Corp. v. Gassenberger 565 So. 2d 1093 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
French Market Homestead v. Portillo 562 So. 2d 1139 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
Commercial Nat. Bank v. Keene 561 So. 2d 813 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
Co., , Texaco, Inc., supra.
Pittman v. Pomeroy 552 So. 2d 983 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
American Bank & , (1967); (La.App.
Palermo Land Co. v. PLANNING COM'N OF CALCASIEU PARISH 550 So. 2d 316 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
Co., [ , (1967) ] the Supreme Court of Louisiana defined the type of estoppel here urged by relator as follows: `Equitable estoppel may be defined as the effect of the voluntary conduct of a party whereby he is precluded from asserting rights against another who has justifiably relied upon such conduct and chang
Lilly v. Angelo 523 So. 2d 899 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
Dizell v. Durr 519 So. 2d 863 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
Anderson v. Anderson 506 So. 2d 200 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1987
CLOUD CONST., INC. v. Schneider, Inc. 491 So. 2d 32 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
Byrd v. Byrd 488 So. 2d 1134 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
American Bank & , (1967); writ denied
Howard Trucking Co., Inc. v. Stassi 474 So. 2d 955 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
American Bank & Trust Company v. Trinity Universal Insurance Company, [ ]
FIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS & LOAN OF NATHITOCHES v. American Bank & Trust Co. 461 So. 2d 341 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
1st Cir.1967), affirmed , (1967); (La.
Concrete Post-Tensioning v. Armco, Inc. 449 So. 2d 712 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
CPT'S CONDUCT AS A BAR TO ACTION ON BASIS OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL In American Bank & , at 40 (La.1967), the Supreme Court set forth the following considerations for application of the doctrine of equitable estoppel: "Equitable estoppel may be defined as the effect of the voluntary conduct of a party whereby he is precluded from asserting rights against another who has justifiably relied u
John Bailey Contr. v. St., Dept. of Tr. & Dev. 439 So. 2d 1055 La. 1983
The Third Circuit correctly applied the jurisprudentially developed doctrine of equitable estoppel, and we quote from their opinion: [The] Supreme Court in American Bank and Trust Company v. Trinity Universal Insurance Company [ ], made the following observations concerning equitable estoppel: Equitable estoppel may be defined as the effect of the voluntary conduct of a party whereby he is precluded from asserting rights against another who has justifiably relied upon such conduct and changed hi
John Bailey Contractor, Inc. v. State 425 So. 2d 326 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
[3] , made the following observations concerning equitable estoppel: "Equitable estoppel may be defined as the effect of the voluntary conduct of a party whereby he is precluded from asserting rights against another who has justifiably relied upon such conduct and changed his position so that he wil
Quality Finance Co. v. Mitchell 423 So. 2d 1262 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Co., , Wadley v. Gleason, 192 La.
Kleinpeter v. Williams 405 So. 2d 336 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
Chambers v. PAROCHIAL EMPLOYEES'RETIREMENT SYSTEM 398 So. 2d 102 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
1 Cir. 1966), affirmed, , (1967); Babin v. Montegut Insurance Agency, Inc., (La.
Watson v. Haik 393 So. 2d 173 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
Dept. of Culture, Recreation & Tourism v. Fort MacOmb Dev. Corp. 385 So. 2d 1233 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
Co., La.App., 194, So.2d 164, Affirmed, , ; and Babin v. Montegut Insurance Agency, Inc., La.
Twillie v. HB Zachry Co. 380 So. 2d 747 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
4th Cir., 1967); , (1967).
Louisiana Paving Co. v. STATE, DEPT. OF HWYS. 372 So. 2d 245 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
American Bank and Trust Company v. Trinity Universal Insurance Company [ , ], above.
Sanders v. General Amer. Life Ins. Co. 364 So. 2d 1373 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1978
Holleyman v. Garbarino 358 So. 2d 365 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1978
Concerning the third issue, , , at page 40 (La.1967) said: "Equitable estoppel may be defined as the effect of the voluntary conduct of a party whereby he is precluded from asserting rights against another who has justifiably relied upon such conduct and changed his position so that he will suffer injury if the former is allowed to
STATE ETC. v. National Advertising Co. 356 So. 2d 557 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1978
Porter v. Travelers Indem.
Cudahy Foods Co. v. Rich Plan of Baton Rouge, Inc. 349 So. 2d 894 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
Abbeville Lumber Co. v. Richard 350 So. 2d 1292 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
our Supreme Court stated: "Equitable estoppel may be defined as the effect of the voluntary conduct of a party whereby he is precluded from asserting rights against another who has justifiably relied upon such conduct and changed his position so that he will suffer injury if the former is all
Fear v. Calumet Industries, Inc. 350 So. 2d 940 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
1st *943 Cir., 1966), aff’d , , and cases cited.
Daspit v. City of Alexandria 342 So. 2d 683 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
Our Supreme Court defined the doctrine of equitable estoppel in American Bank & , (1967) as follows: Equitable estoppel may be defined as the effect of the voluntary conduct of a party whereby he is precluded from asserting rights against another who has justifiably relied upon such conduct and changed his position so that he will suffer injury if the former is allowed to repudiate t
International Harvester Credit Corp. v. American Troubleshooters, Inc. 338 So. 2d 708 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
Co., , (1967) the Supreme Court said: “Equitable estoppel may be defined as the effect of the voluntary conduct of a party whereby he is precluded from asserting rights against another who has justifiably relied upon such conduct and changed his position so that he will suffer injury if the former is allowed t
State v. Mitchell 337 So. 2d 1186 La. 1976
Co., , (1967); Bigelow on Estoppel, 634 (6th ed. Carter, 1913).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by