Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Andrepont v. Acadia Drilling Co., 231 So. 2d 347.

70 citing documents.

Steve Crooks and Era Lea Crooks v. State of La., Department of Natural Resources La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
The supreme court in Andrepont v. Acadia Drilling Company[, ] enumerated factors for us to consider when deciding whether a contract provides a benefit for a third person: (1) The existence of a legal relationship between the promisee and the third person involving an obligation owed by the promisee to the beneficiar
Johnson Law Firm, LLC v. Tina Rabalais Knoll La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
Liberty Oil & Gas Corp., 01- 0345, p. 12 (La App. 3 Cir. 6/20/01), ( 255 La.
Scarberry v. Entergy Corp. 172 So. 3d 51 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
3 Cir. 6/20/01), ( , 255 La.
Ed Grabowski, Et Ux. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
7/26/01), and “The lessee shall be responsible for all damages caused by lessee’s operations.” So.2d 347, 348 (1969).
Grabowski v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. 149 So. 3d 899 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
3 Cir. 6/20/01), , writ denied, 01-2115 (La.7/26/01), ; and “The lessee shall be responsible for all damages caused by lessee’s operations.” , (1969).
Global Marketing Solutions, LLC v. Blue Mill Farms, Inc. 153 So. 3d 1209 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Carlos Boone, Et Ux. v. Conoco Phillips Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
Boone v. Conoco Phillips Co. 139 So. 3d 1047 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
John C. Duck v. Hunt Oil Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
10/31/03), So.2d 347 (1969), cases where stipulations pour autrui were found to exist because the damage clauses at issue in those cases did not restrict liability to just the damages suffered by the lessors.
Duck v. Hunt Oil Co. 134 So. 3d 114 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
3 Cir. 4/2/03) , , writs denied, 03-1585, 03-1624 (La.10/31/03), , (1969), cases where stipulations pour autrui were found to exist because the damage clauses at issue in those cases did not restrict liability to just the damages suffered by the lessors.
Dugas v. Thompson 71 So. 3d 1059 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
(1969), and applied in Cooper, supra, for determining whether a contract provides a benefit for a third person: (1) The existence of a legal relationship between the promisee and the third person involving an obligation owed by the promisee to the beneficiary which performance of the promise will disch
Wagoner v. CHEVRON USA INC. 55 So. 3d 12 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
l7The Supreme Court in Magnolia Coal, supra, , found that the plaintiff was a third party beneficiary with a right to recover pre-acquisition restoration damages under a damage provision of the mineral lease.
Vision Aviation, LLC v. Airport Authority for Airport dist.no. 1 of Cal. Parish, La La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
So.2d 347 (1969).” Camellia Place Subdivision–Block 1 (La.App.
Vision Aviation, LLC v. Airport Authority for Airport District No. 1 of Calcasieu Parish 33 So. 3d 423 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
(1969).” Camellia Place Subdivision-Block 1 (La.App.
Sheila Romero v. Allstate Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
Romero v. Allstate Insurance Co. 11 So. 3d 579 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Distinguished LEJEUNE BROS. v. Goodrich Petroleum Co. 981 So. 2d 23 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
(1969); and Hazelwood Farm, Inc. v. Liberty Oil and Gas Corp., et al, (La.App.
Distinguished Lejeune Brothers, Inc. v. Goodrich Petroleum Co., LLC. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
The language of this contract is distinguishable from the language and subsequent pronouncements of Andrepont vs. Acadia Drilling Company, (La.
Joseph v. Hospital Service District No. 2 of the Parish of St. Mary 939 So. 2d 1206 La. 2006
(1969), this court utilized the factors proposed by Professor J. Denson Smith to be considered in deciding whether an advantage for a third person has been provided by a contract between others.
Joseph v. HOSPITAL SERVICE DISTRICT NO. 2 939 So. 2d 1206 La. 2006
[6] , (1969), this court utilized the factors proposed by Professor J. Denson Smith to be considered in deciding whether an advantage for a third person has been provided by a contract between others.
Shawane Alexander v. Nicole Gary La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
So.2d 347, 358 (La.1969), the Louisiana Supreme court set forth the following criteria for determining whether a stipulation pour autrui has been made: (1) The existence of a legal relationship between the promisee and the third person involving an obligation owed by the promisee to the benef
Alexander v. Gary 924 So. 2d 428 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
the Louisiana Supreme court set forth the following criteria for determining whether a stipulation pour autrui has been made: *430 (1) The existence of a legal relationship between the promisee and the third person involving an obligation owed by the promisee to the beneficiary which pe
Joseph v. Hospital Service District No. 2 of the Parish of St. Mary 923 So. 2d 27 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
However, considering the entirety of the contractual relationships obviously contemplated, and relying on the legal principles that stipulations pour autrui are favored in our law, and that one can stipulate for an undetermined person (see Andrepont v. Acadia Drilling Co., Inc. , (1969)), we find that the contract clearly manifests an intent to benefit Dr. Brumfield also.
Travis Cooper v. Louisiana Deptartment of Public Works La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
Cooper v. La. Dept. of Public Works 870 So. 2d 315 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
Mitchell Co. v. Mucavil, Inc. 855 So. 2d 426 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
Hazelwood Farm, Inc. v. Liberty Oil and Gas Corp. 844 So. 2d 380 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
Hazelwood Farm, Inc. v. Liberty Oil & Gas Corp. 790 So. 2d 93 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
Jurisich v. Jenkins 749 So. 2d 597 La. 1999
After carefully examining this issue, we find that the language of this clause contravenes the *604 , (1969), and further contravenes our holding in Inabnet .
Fairbanks v. Tulane University 731 So. 2d 983 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
(1969) (on rehearing) (quoting Planiol, Traité lémentaire de Droit Civil, An English Translation by the Louisiana State Law Institute, vol.
Gardner v. ZULU SOCIAL AID & PLEASURE CLUB 729 So. 2d 675 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
18, 58 (1936), quoted in, Andrepont v. Acadia Drilling Co., Inc., , (1969); (La.App.
Turner v. Pelican 661 So. 2d 1065 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
See, for the requirements of a " stipulaiton pour autrui ".
Apolinar v. Professional Construction Services, Inc. 650 So. 2d 1239 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Apolinar argues that this constitutes a stipulation pour autrui citing: Whitney Nat.
WHITNEY NAT. v. Howard Weil Fin. Corp. 631 So. 2d 1308 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
See, , (1969), wherein the Supreme Court enumerated factors to be considered in deciding whether a third party advantage exists.
Magnolia Coal Terminal v. Phillips Oil 576 So. 2d 475 La. 1991
Comb v. Dugas 576 So. 2d 1130 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
See Andrepont v. Acadia Drilling Company [ ], 231 So2d 347 (La.1969).
Magnolia Coal Terminal v. Phillips Oil Co. 561 So. 2d 732 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
Tallo v. Stroh Brewery Co. 544 So. 2d 452 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
(1969), 231 So.2d at p. 351 , citing Smith, Third Party Beneficiaries in Louisiana: The Stipulation Pour Autrui, 11 Tul.L.Rev.
Homer Nat. Bank v. Tri-District Dev. Corp. 534 So. 2d 154 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
(1969); Fontenot v. Marquette Casualty Company, 258 La.
Freeland v. Crab Run Gas Co. 527 So. 2d 1197 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
Defendant’s So.2d 347 (1969).
Ashby v. IMC Exploration Co. 506 So. 2d 1193 La. 1987
1974); Andrepont v. Acadia Drilling Co., Inc., , (1969).
Dartez v. Dixon 502 So. 2d 1063 La. 1987
(1969) and are listed as follows: "(1) The existence of a legal relationship between the promisee and the third person involving an obligation owed by the promisee to the beneficiary which performance of the promise will discharge; (2) the existence of a factual relationship between the promi
Fontenot v. Waste Management of Lake Charles, Inc. 493 So. 2d 904 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
CAMELLIA PLACE SUBDIVISION-BLOCK 1 ASS'N v. Willet 491 So. 2d 764 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
New South Advertising, Ltd. v. Krock-O-Cheese, Inc. 486 So. 2d 1115 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
See and compare Andrepont v. Acadia Drilling Co., 255 La.347, (1969); and Spaht and Johnson, Work of Appellate Courts1975-1976: Obligations, 37 La.L.
Broussard v. Northcott Exploration Co., Inc. 481 So. 2d 125 La. 1986
For this reason, , (1969)
Broussard v. Northcott Exploration Co. 469 So. 2d 392 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
(1969), the Supreme Court adopted the following criteria for determining whether a stipulation pour au-trui has been made: “(1) The existence of a legal relationship between the promisee and the third person involving an obligation owed by the promisee to the beneficiary which performance of the promis
State v. Joint Comm'n on Accreditation of Hosps., Inc. 470 So. 2d 169 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
(1969); see also Smith, Third Party Beneficiaries in Louisiana: The Stipulation Pour Autrui, 11 Tul.L.Rev.
Anselmi v. Walk-Haydel & Associates, Loop, Inc. 469 So. 2d 1122 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
in which the court held that third parties can be beneficiaries of the stipulation as long as they are determinable on the day on which the agreement is to have effect for their benefit.
Arrow Trucking Co. v. Continental Ins. Co. 465 So. 2d 691 La. 1985
art. 1890; [2] , (1969); First State Bank v. Burton, 225 La.