Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Mitchell v. Bertolla, 340 So. 2d 287.

108 citing documents.

Lieber v. Re Ownership of Real Property Located in Caddo Parish 501 So. 2d 957 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
Ryan v. Grandison Trust 490 So. 2d 317 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
our Supreme Court held that “cause” means “the juridical or material fact which is the basis of the right claimed, or the defense pleaded.” In Dixon, Booksh *321 and Zimmering, Res Judicata in Louisiana Since Hope v. Madison, 51 Tul.L.Rev.
Rosenbloom v. Mecom 478 So. 2d 1375 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
Boudreaux v. Boudreaux 471 So. 2d 1095 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
” See also Gremillion v. Town of Cottonport, supra.
Rhodes v. O'Connor-Valls Laboratory Inc. 470 So. 2d 334 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
and quoted from Freeman, Law of Judgments, § 681, 1437-38: There is an obvious distinction between grounds of action and cause of action; a single cause of action may be based upon several grounds, in which event, whether actually litigated or not, they are all merged in the judgment which bars a new action
Dart v. Ehret 466 So. 2d 1336 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
Lococo v. Lococo 462 So. 2d 893 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
MUT. FIRE, MARINE & INLAND INS. v. Electro Corp. 461 So. 2d 410 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
Haynie v. Haynie 452 So. 2d 426 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
Gross v. Continental Insurance Co. 451 So. 2d 1285 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
1st Cir.1980); Continental Ins.
Cornish v. Freeman 451 So. 2d 148 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
DAUL INS. AGENCY, INC. v. Parish of Jefferson 447 So. 2d 1208 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1984
W.Q. Wise, Inc. v. Lewing 446 So. 2d 964 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
art. 2286; ” The theory of civilian res judicata is that matters actually litigated and finally adjudged are presumed correct and, thus, should not be contradicted in a subsequent suit.
Lowe v. Rivers 445 So. 2d 105 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
that the phrase "cause of action" in Article 2286 is to be interpreted to mean "cause", which refers to "the juridical or material fact which is the basis of the right claimed, or the defense pleaded."
State, Through Dept. of Highways v. Luling Indus. 443 So. 2d 672 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1983
Safeco Ins. Co. of America v. Palermo 436 So. 2d 536 La. 1983
defined the civilian concept of cause, pointing out that Civil Code Article 2286 mistranslates cause as cause of action and the two terms are not necessarily identical.
Orgeron v. Loop, Inc. 433 So. 2d 278 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
rehearing denied, 1976; Ditch, supra .
Wilson v. HJ Wilson Co., Inc. 430 So. 2d 1227 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
See Mitchell v. Bertolla, [ ], supra, and the authorities collected therein.
Coffil v. Boyd 428 So. 2d 1355 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
Klein v. RECORDER OF MTG. FOR ORLEANS PARISH 430 So. 2d 1047 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
Safeco Insurance Co. of America v. Palermo 422 So. 2d 1375 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Succession of Kilpatrick 422 So. 2d 464 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
Gremillion v. Town of Cottonport 420 So. 2d 1302 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
DECATUR-ST. LOUIS, ETC. v. Abercrombie 421 So. 2d 253 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
Braquet v. Administrators of the Tulane Educational Fund 419 So. 2d 30 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Sayes v. Tassin 419 So. 2d 20 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
our Supreme Court said, at page 291: “The cause is said to be the judicial or material fact which is the basis of the right claimed, or the defense pleaded.
Continental Insurance Co. v. Lute 418 So. 2d 43 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Lamartiniere v. Allstate Insurance 415 So. 2d 499 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
the Supreme Court clarified any confusion over the language, “cause of action,” in C.C.
Doyle v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co. 414 So. 2d 763 La. 1982
La.Civ.Code art. 2286; Dornak v. Lafayette General Hospital, supra
Emory v. Gardner 415 So. 2d 339 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
Sylvester v. St. Landry Parish Police Jury 414 So. 2d 793 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Reaux v. Iberia Parish Police Jury 411 So. 2d 727 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
art. 2286; Mitchell v. Bertolla, *730
Lamb v. Lamb 411 So. 2d 1 La. 1982
First Guaranty Bank v. Durham 409 So. 2d 380 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
Lambert v. Maryland Cas. Co. 403 So. 2d 739 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
Ditch v. Finkelstein 399 So. 2d 1216 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
Dornak v. Lafayette General Hospital 399 So. 2d 168 La. 1981
La.Civ.Code art. 2286; (La.
Mitchell v. Bertolla 397 So. 2d 56 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1981
Succession of Bagwell 391 So. 2d 919 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
Bissett v. Bissett 393 So. 2d 205 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
Scurlock Oil Company v. Getty Oil Company, supra.
RG Claitor's Realty v. Juban 391 So. 2d 394 La. 1980
Tassin v. Sayes 386 So. 2d 995 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
Jones v. Skannal 384 So. 2d 492 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1980
Art. 2286 plaintiffs' argument appears to have merit.
Summers v. Summers Bros., Inc. 385 So. 2d 489 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
Golman v. Dixie Ins. Co. 385 So. 2d 309 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
Ritchey v. Azar 374 So. 2d 728 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
Of any nature or kind whatsoever and dismiss all pending litigation.” for the proposition that for res judicata to be utilized as a bar to a subsequent suit there must be identity of “cause” (in a civilian sense of the term) between the two suits *730 and that such is not here present as the first suit involved certain rights to immovable property and the present suit involves
Harris v. Bardwell 373 So. 2d 777 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1979
McKean v. Campbell 372 So. 2d 652 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
Albritton v. McDonald 363 So. 2d 925 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1979
Ugulano v. Allstate Ins. Co. 367 So. 2d 6 La. 1978
where we examined in detail the "judicial estoppel" of California Co. v. Price, 234 La.