Cited by
Opinions in Louisiana that cite Golz v. Children's Bureau of New Orleans, Inc., 326 So. 2d 865.
-
Daniels v. Int'l Paper Co.
245 So. 3d 180
La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2017
Golz v. Children's Bureau of New Orleans , , 869 (La.
-
Potier v. Morris Bart, L.L.C.
214 So. 3d 116
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
In Golz v. Children’s Bureau of New Orleans, Inc. (La.
-
Williams v. Keller Williams Realty, 1-800-351-5111, L.L.C.
154 So. 3d 605
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Often in small print, these contracts sometimes raise a question as to whether or not the weaker party actually consented to the terms.” Aguillard v. Auction Management Corp., 2004-2804, 2004-2857, p. 9 (La.6/29/05), -9 (citing Golz v. Children’s Bureau of N.O., )..
-
Explained
Clark v. CHRISTUS HEALTH NORTHERN LOUISIANA
47 So. 3d 1135
La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
As explained in Shepard, supra, citing Golz v. Children’s Bureau of New Orleans, Inc., an adhesion contract is typically a standard small print form prepared by a party with superior bargaining power for adherence or rejection by a weaker party.
-
Bradstreet v. Kinchen
10 So. 3d 331
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
1766, 1811; S. Litvinoff, 6 Louisiana Civil Law Treatise-Obligations (Book 1), § 194, pp. 346-349 (1969).” Golz v. Children’s Bureau of New Orleans, appeal dismissed, 426 U.S. 901 , 96 S.Ct.
- HOFFMAN, SIEGEL, SEYDEL, BIENVENU v. Lee 936 So. 2d 853 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
-
Aguillard v. Auction Management Corp.
908 So. 2d 1
La. 2005
appeal dismissed, 426 U.S. 901 , 96 S.Ct.
-
Dave F. Aguillard v. Auction Management Corporation
La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
Often in small print, these contracts sometimes raise a question as to whether or not the weaker party actually consented to the terms.” Golz v. Children’s Bureau of New Orleans
- Aguillard v. Auction Management Corp. 884 So. 2d 1257 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
-
Dufrene v. HBOS MFG., LP
872 So. 2d 1206
La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
Golz v. Children's Bureau of New Orleans, Inc., Posadas v. The Pool Depot, 02-1819 (La.
-
Posadas v. the Pool Depot, Inc.
858 So. 2d 611
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Golz v. Children's Bureau of New Orleans, Inc.
- Simpson v. Grimes 849 So. 2d 740 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
-
Simpson v. Pep Boys-Manny Moe & Jack, Inc.
847 So. 2d 617
La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
4 Cir. 5/15/96), -525 , citing Golz v. Children's Bureau of New Orleans, Inc.
-
Stadtlander v. Ryan's Family Steakhouses, Inc.
794 So. 2d 881
La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
Golz v. Children's Bureau of New Orleans, Inc., app. dism., 426 U.S. 901 , 96 S.Ct.
-
SUTTON'S STEEL & SUP. INC. v. BellSouth Mobility, Inc.
776 So. 2d 589
La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
Citing Golz v. Children's Bureau of New Orleans, Inc., Revision Comment (c) provides that "[u]nder the Article, a contract of adhesion must be interpreted against the party who prepared it."
- Hussain v. Enterprise Leasing Co., Inc. 735 So. 2d 46 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
-
Shepard v. Phycor of Ruston, Inc.
711 So. 2d 288
La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
Contrary to Ms. Shepard's assertion, the contract which she signed cannot be equated with a contract of adhesion as defined in Golz v. Children's Bureau of New Orleans, Inc.
-
Welch v. AG Edwards & Sons, Inc.
677 So. 2d 520
La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
Golz v. Children's Bureau of New Orleans, Inc. Appeal Dismissed, 426 U.S. 901 , 96 S.Ct.
- Lewis v. Hamilton 652 So. 2d 1327 La. 1995
-
McGoldrick v. Lou Ana Foods, Inc.
649 So. 2d 455
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Contract of Adhesion Aguillard contends that the trial judge erred by failing to apply the defense of “contract of adhesion.” Golz v. Children’s Bureau of New Orleans, Inc., broadly defines a contract of adhesion as, “a standard contract, usually in printed form, prepared by a party of superior bargaining power for adherence or rejection by the weaker party.
-
McGoldrick v. Lou Ana Foods, Inc.
649 So. 2d 455
La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
Golz v. Children's Bureau of New Orleans, Inc., broadly defines a contract of adhesion as, "a standard contract, usually in printed form, prepared by a party of superior bargaining power for adherence or rejection by the weaker party.
-
State ex rel. T.H. v. N.H.
631 So. 2d 36
La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
The court also relied on Golz v. Children’s Bureau of New Orleans, Inc.
-
Lawrence v. Wynne
598 So. 2d 1293
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
Falcon cites Golz v. Children’s Bureau of New Orleans, Inc., appeal dismissed 426 U.S. 901 , 96 S.Ct.
-
State ex rel. T.C.
552 So. 2d 1369
La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
In Golz v. Children’s Bureau of New Orleans, Inc., the Supreme Court found that failure of the parents to consult legal counsel during their relationship with the Bureau did not render the act of surrender executed by them invalid.
-
State ex rel. M.B.
493 So. 2d 198
La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
In Golz v. Children’s Bureau of New Orleans, Inc., the Supreme Court found that failure of the parents to consult legal counsel during their relationship with the Bureau did not render the act of surrender executed by them invalid.
-
FD v. Associated Catholic Charities of New Orleans, Inc.
480 So. 2d 380
La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
1076 , (1951); Golz v. Children's Bureau of New Orleans, Inc., (La.App.
-
State ex rel. M.T. v. D.T.
447 So. 2d 97
La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
See also, Golz v. Children’s Bureau of New Orleans, Inc.
-
Caldwell Country Club v. Dept. of Transp.
438 So. 2d 723
La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
The Supreme Court in Golz v. Children's Bureau of New Orleans, Inc., at page 869 defined a contract of adhesion as a "...
-
Allen v. Volunteers of America
378 So. 2d 1030
La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1980
Golz v. Children's Bureau of New Orleans, Inc.
-
In Re Martin
357 So. 2d 893
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
See Golz v. Children's Bureau of New Orleans, Inc., La., (1976).
-
Louisiana Power & Light Co. v. Mecom
357 So. 2d 596
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
1081 (1974); cf. Golz v. Children's Bureau of New Orleans, Inc., appeal dismissed 426 U.S. 901 , 96 S.Ct.
-
Dillon v. State
336 So. 2d 1066
La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1976
See Golz v. Children's Bureau of New Orleans, Inc.