DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

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.

  • Vappie v. American Home Insurance 392 So. 2d 188 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    The other leading case from the Supreme Court on unjust enrichment, Edmonston v. A-Second Mortgage Co. of Slidell, Inc., contains the following: “The issue, then, is whether there is a contract, express or implied, between Mrs. Edmonston and A-Second or Standard and A-Second which would justify the enrichment of A-Second.
  • HMC MANAGEMENT v. New Orleans Basketball Club 375 So. 2d 700 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1979
    Edmonston vs A-2nd Mortgage Company of Slidell, Inc., (Sup.Ct.
  • American Home Etc. v. Commercial Union, Etc. 379 So. 2d 757 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1979
    Likewise without merit is appellant's release on enrichment lately discussed in Edmonston v. A-Second Mortgage Co. of Slidell, Inc.
  • 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., 251 La.
  • Capitano v. Huber, Hunt & Nichols, Inc. 359 So. 2d 308 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
    624 , (1967); Edmonston v. A-Second Mortgage Company of Slidell, Inc.
  • Acme Refrig. of Baton Rouge, Inc. v. Caljoan, Inc. 346 So. 2d 743 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    The trial court held that plaintiffs' action was proper as an "actio de in rem verso" citing Edmonston v. A-Second Mortgage Co. of Slidell, Inc.
  • Lyons v. City of Shreveport 339 So. 2d 466 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1977
    624 , (1967) and again applied in Edmonston v. A-Second Mortgage Co. of Slidell, Inc.
  • McDonald v. Champagne 340 So. 2d 1025 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    In Edmonston v. A-Second Mortgage Company of Slidell, Inc., La., (1974), the leading case on the subject, the Supreme Court said: *1027 "The issue, then, is whether there is a contract, express or implied, between Mrs. Edmonston and A-Second or Standard and A-Second which would justify the enrichment of A-Second.
  • Oil Purchasers, Inc. v. Kuehling 334 So. 2d 420 La. 1976
  • Sylvester v. Dupre 333 So. 2d 447 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    624 , (1967); Edmonston v. A-Second Mortgage Company of Slidell, Inc.
  • V-8 Taxi Cab Service, Inc. v. Hayes 322 So. 2d 442 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1975
    See Edmonston v. A-Second Mortgage Co. of Slidell, Inc.
  • 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., 251 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., 251 La.
  • 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., 251 La.