DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Edmonston v. A-Second Mortgage Co. of Slidell, Inc., 289 So. 2d 116.

64 citing documents.

  • H&o Investments, Llc v. Parish Of Jefferson, Through Its Parish President, Cynthia Lee Sheng And Opterra Solutions, Inc. … La. 2025
    1993) (on rehearing); Edmonston v. A-Second Mortg age Co. of Slidell , (La.
  • Redar, LLC v. Warren D. Rush La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
    Co. of Slidell, Inc., : The Minyard [v. Iowa Production, ] decision set forth five prerequisites which must be satisfied to successfully invoke the action: 1) There must be an enrichment; 2) there must be an impoverishment; 3) there must be a connection between the enrichment
  • Redar, LLC v. Warren Rush La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
    Co. of Slidell, Inc., : The Minyard [v. Iowa Production, ] decision set forth five prerequisites which must be satisfied to successfully invoke the action: 1) There must be an enrichment; 2) there must be an impoverishment; 3) there must be a connection between the enrichment
  • REDAR, LLC v. Rush 51 So. 3d 859 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
    Co. of Slidell, Inc., : The Minyard [v. Curtis Products, Inc., 251 La.
  • Redar, LLC v. Warren D. Rush La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
    Co. of Slidell, Inc., : The Minyard [v. Iowa Production, ] decision set forth five prerequisites which must be satisfied to successfully invoke the action: 1) There must be an enrichment; 2) there must be an impoverishment; 3) there must be a connection between the enrichment
  • JOINT UNDER. OF AUDUBON INS. CO. v. Johnson 20 So. 3d 528 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2009
    art. 21; Edmonston v. A-Second Mortgage Company of Slidell, Inc., (La.App.
  • Louisiana Joint Underwriters of Audubon Insurance v. Johnson 20 So. 3d 528 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    art. 21; Edmonston v. A-Second Mortgage Company of Slidell, Inc., Chambers v. Parochial Employees’ Retirement System of Louisiana, (La.App.
  • Michael R. Garber v. Badon & Ranier La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    Edmonston v. A-Second Mortgage, [ (La.
  • Garber v. Badon & Ranier 981 So. 2d 92 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    Edmonston v. A-Second Mortgage, [ (La.
  • Corbello v. Iowa Production 850 So. 2d 686 La. 2003
    Co. of Slidell, Inc., Minyard, 205 So.2d at 422 .
  • BAMBURG STEEL BLDS., INC. v. Lawrence Gen. Corp. 817 So. 2d 427 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
    Co. of Slidell, Inc., Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., 251 La.
  • Tandy v. Pecan Shoppe of Minden, Inc. 785 So. 2d 111 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
    Co. of Slidell, Inc., Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., 251 La.
  • Caldwell Wholesale Co. v. Central Oil & Supply Corp. 761 So. 2d 684 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    Baker v. Maclay Properties Co., 94-1529 (La.1/17/95), ; Edmonston v. A-Second Mortgage Co. of Slidell, Inc., Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., 251 La.
  • United Enterprises Corp. v. Dixon Mortgage Group, Inc. 762 So. 2d 43 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    Quoting Edmonston v. A-Second Mortgage Co. of Slidell, Inc., the Baker case defines “cause” as follows: “[clause” is not in this instance assigned the meaning commonly associated with ■contracts, but, rather, it means that the enrichment is justified if it is the result of, or finds its explanation in, the terms of a valid juridical act between the impo-verishee
  • Simon v. Arnold 727 So. 2d 699 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    Over twenty years before this codification of the doctrine, the theory underlying the remedy of unjust enrichment was explained by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Edmonston v. A-Second Mortgage Company of Slidell, Inc., : This restitutionary remedy is founded upon principles of unjust enrichment embodied in Civil Code articles 21 and 1965.
  • Carriere v. Bank of Louisiana 702 So. 2d 648 La. 1997
    Edmonston v. A-Second Mortgage Co. of Slidell, Inc.
  • Plaquemines Parish v. Delta Development 688 So. 2d 169 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
    Levasseur, supra at 355-56; Minyard, Supra; Edmonston v. A-Second Mortgage Co. of Slidell, Inc., Creely v. Leisure Living, Inc., -822 (La.1983).
  • Kilpatrick v. Kilpatrick 660 So. 2d 182 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
    Minyard, supra; Edmonston v. A-Second Mortgage Co. of Slidell, Inc.
  • Baker v. MacLay Properties Co. 648 So. 2d 888 La. 1995
    Minyard ; Edmonston v. A-Second Mortgage Co. of Slidell, Inc., Creely, supra ; Edwards, supra .
  • Fogleman v. Cajun Bag & Supply Co. 638 So. 2d 706 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
  • Edwards v. Conforto 636 So. 2d 901 La. 1994
    605, 610 (1962); Edmonston v. A-Second Mortgage Company of Slidell, Inc., (La.
  • Everything on Wheels Subaru v. Subaru South 593 So. 2d 1269 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
    Kirkpatrick v. Young, 456 So.2d at 624 ; Edmonston v. A-Second Mortgage Company of Slidell, Inc.
  • Ergon, Inc. v. Allen 593 So. 2d 438 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
    Edmonston v. A-Second Mortgage Co. of Slidell, Inc., (La.App.
  • Firmin v. Denham Springs Floor Covering 595 So. 2d 1164 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
    Louisiana Civil Code article 4; (La.App.
  • Scott v. Wesley 589 So. 2d 26 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
    Edmonston v. A-Second Mortgage Company of Slidell, Inc., (La.App.
  • Illinois Cent. Gulf R. v. Deaton, Inc. 581 So. 2d 714 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
    Minyard, 205 So.2d at 432 ; Edmonston v. A-Second Mortgage Co. of Slidell, Inc., -23 (La.1974).
  • LOUISIANA NAT. BANK v. Belello 577 So. 2d 1099 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
    In Edmonston v. A-Second Mortgage Company of Slidell, Inc., the court stated: Civil Code Article 21 expressly states that the judge can turn to equity ( actio de in rem verso ) only where there is no express law.
  • 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., 251 La.
  • Audubon Exploration v. Linder Oil Co. 573 So. 2d 1180 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
    Edmonston v. A-Second Mortgage Co. of Slidell, Inc.
  • Harper v. Kennedy 561 So. 2d 830 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
    See Creely v. Leisure Living, Inc., Edmonston v. A-Second Mortgage Company of Slidell, Inc., (La.App.
  • Pittman v. Pomeroy 552 So. 2d 983 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
    Creely v. Leisure Living, Inc., Edmonston v. A-Second Mortgage Company of Slidell, Inc.
  • Pilgrim Life Ins. Co. of Am. v. Am. Bank & Trust Co. of Opelousas 542 So. 2d 804 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
    As stated in Carter v. Flanagan, supra: "
  • Morphy, Makofsky & Masson, Inc. v. CANAL PLACE 2000 538 So. 2d 569 La. 1989
  • Mouton v. State 525 So. 2d 1136 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
    In Edmonston v. A-Second Mortgage Company of Slidell, Inc., appears the following: Civil Code Article 21 expressly states that the judge can turn to equity ( actio de in rem verso ) only where there is no express law.
  • Security Home Mortg. Corp. v. Bogues 519 So. 2d 307 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
    Edmonston v. A-Second Mortgage Co. of Slidell, Inc.
  • Charrier v. Bell 496 So. 2d 601 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    Creely v. Leisure Living, Inc.
  • V & S PLANTING CO. v. Red River Waterway Com'n 472 So. 2d 331 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
    UNJUST ENRICHMENT The theory underlying the remedy of unjust enrichment was explained by our Supreme Court in Edmonston v. A-Second Mortgage Company of Slidell, Inc., : "...
  • Cahn v. Cahn 468 So. 2d 1176 La. 1985
    624 , (1967); Edmonston v. A-Second Mortgage Company of Slidell, Inc.
  • Kirkpatrick v. Young 456 So. 2d 622 La. 1984
    Minyard, supra; Edmonston v. A-Second Mortgage Company of Slidell, Inc., (La.App.
  • 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., 251 La.
  • Carter v. Flanagan 455 So. 2d 689 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
  • Terrebonne Parish Police Jury v. Kelly 428 So. 2d 1092 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    art. 21; Edmonston v. A-Second Mortgage Company of Slidell, Inc., (La.App.
  • Slocum v. Daigre 424 So. 2d 1074 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
    UNJUST ENRICHMENT The theoretical basis for unjust enrichment was explained by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Edmonston v. A-Second Mortgage Company of Slidell, Inc., : "This restitutionary remedy is founded upon principles of unjust enrichment embodied in Civil Code articles 21 and 1965.1 The action derives from the maxim that natural justice requires that no one should be enriched at the expense of another.
  • New Hotel Monteleone v. First Nat. Bank 423 So. 2d 1305 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
    Art. 1901; Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., supra ; Edmonston v. A-2nd Mortgage Co. of Slidell, Inc.
  • Creely v. Leisure Living, Inc. 423 So. 2d 1224 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
  • N-Y Associates, Inc. ex rel. Nicoladis v. St. Charles Parish Police Jury ex rel. Melancon 422 So. 2d 520 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    His information, even on that, was something that he had read or “heard.” (1974), the Louisiana Supreme Court set forth the prerequisites for unjust enrichment cases to include, of course, an “enrichment”, and that prerequisite remains unproven in the present case.
  • Lowry v. Decks & Tapes, Inc. 415 So. 2d 632 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    3rd Cir. 1977), writ denied Edmonston v. A-Second Mortgage Company of Slidell, Inc.
  • Laspopoulos v. Chaisson 413 So. 2d 248 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
  • Porter v. Johnson 408 So. 2d 961 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1981
    Edmonston v. A-Second Mortgage Company of Slidell, Inc., (La.
  • Stelly Construction, Inc. v. Richard 401 So. 2d 1214 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    Edmonston v. A-Second Mortgage Co. of Slidell, Inc.