DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Webster v. Rushing, 316 So. 2d 111.

82 citing documents.

  • Trahan v. Gerber Food Products, Inc. 520 So. 2d 956 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
  • Bennett v. Sedco Maritime 520 So. 2d 894 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
  • Keller v. Amedeo 512 So. 2d 385 La. 1987
  • State, Department of Transportation & Development v. Nassar 512 So. 2d 1221 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
  • Keller v. Amedeo 501 So. 2d 309 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
    and any other matter constituting an affirmative defense.”)
  • Lagars v. Lagars 491 So. 2d 5 La. 1986
  • Halphen v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. 484 So. 2d 110 La. 1986
  • Boudreaux v. Terrebonne Parish Police Jury 477 So. 2d 1235 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
  • Osborne v. Stone 472 So. 2d 223 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
  • Shurman v. Lewis 465 So. 2d 78 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
  • Brightway Signs, Inc. v. W.W. Sharkey 457 So. 2d 758 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
  • Lauer v. City of Kenner 445 So. 2d 1308 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1984
    C.P., Art. 1154, pleadings may be amended at trial to include special damages not previously alleged by presentation of otherwise inadmissible evidence establishing such damages, and when such evidence is not objected to by the opposing party
  • Carollo v. Shoney's Big Boy Enterprises 433 So. 2d 803 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1983
    Art. 1154; Barksdale v. Southern Airways, Inc., (La.App.
  • Goulas v. Goulas 426 So. 2d 735 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
    Explaining this article, (La.
  • Guidry v. Rubin 425 So. 2d 366 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
    4th Cir.1972); and Gar Real Estate & (La.App.
  • Repp Personnel Service, Inc. v. Deshautelles 398 So. 2d 626 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    The Louisiana Supreme Court has stated that, “An affirmative defense raises new matter which, assuming the allegations in the petition to be true, constitutes a defense to the action and will have the effect of defeating plaintiff’s demand on its merits.” 1
  • Rourke v. Cloud 398 So. 2d 57 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
  • Mike's Service Station Supply, Inc. v. Thiele 391 So. 2d 560 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    Conversely, the Court held where the evidence was clear that the defendant- contracted with plaintiff only in his capacity as president of the corporation and never led the plaintiff to believe that he intended to become personally bound for the obligation, the corporate president was not personally bound in solido wit
  • Little v. Little 391 So. 2d 1213 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    explains this issue in the following manner: “Even before the adoption of the 1960 Code of Civil Procedure, a defendant had to plead special defenses affirmatively in his answer.
  • Vermilion Corp. v. Vaughn 387 So. 2d 698 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
  • Modicut v. Bremer 398 So. 2d 570 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
  • State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. McKinnon 378 So. 2d 1038 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    will have the effect of defeating plaintiff’s demands on its [the affirmative defense’s] merits.” McKinnon not only did not plead his status as a disclosed salesman-employee of another, he attempted to defeat plaintiffs’ adding of Henderson, the true proprietor, as a defendant after trial when it was revealed in testimony that Henderson was the proprietor.
  • Pace v. Reasing Rivers Const. Co., Inc. 377 So. 2d 530 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
  • Dickens v. Young 378 So. 2d 132 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
  • Durham v. Evans 377 So. 2d 423 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1979
    Art. 1154; Barksdale v. Southern Airways, Inc., (La.App.
  • DLJ of Louisiana No. 1 v. Green Thumb, Inc. 376 So. 2d 121 La. 1979
    [9] DLJ in its application for writs also asserts that the defenses to a nullity action provided by art. 2003 are affirmative defenses, Michel v. Efferson, 223 La.
  • Bank of New Orleans & Trust Co. v. Lambert 373 So. 2d 550 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
  • Trahan v. Ritterman 368 So. 2d 181 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
  • Red Barn Chemicals, Inc. v. Lassalle 350 So. 2d 1315 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
    Art. 1154; Webster v. Rushing, La., (1975); Austrum v. City of Baton Rouge, La., (1973).
  • Langhans v. Hale 345 So. 2d 1226 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
  • Conques v. Hardy 337 So. 2d 627 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
  • Smith v. Smith 331 So. 2d 611 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    The court may grant a continuance to enable the objecting party to meet such evidence.” the Court said: “The general rule established by the jurisprudence is that pleadings may be enlarged by evidence adduced without objection when such evidence is not per tinent to any other issue raised by the pleadings and, hence, would have been excluded if objected to timely.” Our review of the record fai