Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite George Engine Co., Inc. v. Southern Shipbldg. Corp., 350 So. 2d 881.

29 citing documents.

Patriot Construction & Industrial,llc v. Buquet & Leblanc, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2024
Henry Hawney and Jennifer Amedee Hawney v. Unique Furniture Source, Inc. A/K/A Old South Lighting and Ironworks, Robby … La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2022
The district court erred in ignoring the Louisiana Supreme Court’s ruling in George Engine Co., (La.
Fla. Gas Transmission Co. v. Tex. Brine Co. 267 So. 3d 633 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
Jasper Contractors, Inc. v. E-Claim.com, LLC 94 So. 3d 123 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
In George Engine Co., the application of Louisiana arbitration law was at issue, whereas in the instant case, the parties contractually agreed that the current AAA Commercial Arbitration Rules and the FAA would be applicable.
Bolden v. Fedex Ground Package System, Inc. 60 So. 3d 679 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
A Neither party suggests that we resolve this issue under George Engine Co.
New Orleans Private Patrol Service, Inc. v. Valiant Payroll Service, Inc. 56 So. 3d 1084 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
Discussion The plaintiff does not dispute that there are arbitration provisions in the signed agreements but, rather, contends that the agreements are null and void because there was error and lack of consent in the confection of the agreements, citing George Engine Co., Inc. v. Southern Shipbuilding, Corp., as authority for its argument that the trial court must first determine the validity of the agreement before it can order arbitration.
Gilbert v. ROBERT ANGEL BUILDER, INC. 34 So. 3d 1109 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
George Engine Co., Sun Drilling Products Corp. v. Rayborn, 97-2112 (La.App.
Saavedra v. Dealmaker Developments, LLC 8 So. 3d 758 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
In support, for the proposition that an arbitration provision “do[es] not vest in arbitrators the historic jurisdiction of the courts to determine fraud or duress in the inception of a contract.” Id.
Long v. Jeb Breithaupt Design Build Inc. 4 So. 3d 930 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
ff files a suit for rescission of a contract containing the arbitration clause and alleges that the contract is invalid ab initio due to a vice of consent, the court must determine the validity of the contract first in the face of the allegations of its invalidity before granting the exception or staying the proceedings pending arbitration
Joseph and Stacey Williams v. Thomas C. Litton La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
Williams v. Litton 865 So. 2d 838 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
In Re Succession of Taravella 734 So. 2d 149 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
Farmers Cotton Co., Inc. v. Savage 714 So. 2d 926 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
Ackel v. Ackel, 97-70 (La.App.
TRCM, LLC v. Twilight Partnership 706 So. 2d 1037 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
We found no palpable error in the trial court's reliance on George Engine Co.
Sun Drilling Products Corp. v. Rayborn 703 So. 2d 818 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
The result reached by this Court is also consistent with the reasoning of the Louisiana Supreme Court in George Engine, Co.
Wied v. TRCM, LLC 698 So. 2d 685 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
(1977), the defendant contracted to construct several vessels for the plaintiff.
Ackel v. Ackel 696 So. 2d 140 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1997
The Supreme Court decided this very issue in George Engine Co.
Musso's Corner, Inc. v. a & R UNDERWRITERS, INC. 539 So. 2d 915 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
Presidential relies on George Engine Co., to support its argument that the Court should have permitted Presidential to show fraud and then rule on the validity of the insurance contract prior to homologating the award.
Folkland v. Thomson McKinnon Sec., Inc. 484 So. 2d 310 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
In George Engine Co., the Supreme Court discussed the limitation of 9:4201 as follows: "Aside from a natural reluctance to surrender the historical jurisdiction of courts to decide the legal issue presented by a petition to rescind a contract on account of error in its inducement, arbitrators are designated to arbitrate and reso
La. Power & Light Co. v. United Gas Pipe Line Co. 478 So. 2d 1240 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
Mt. Airy Refining Co. v. Clark Acquisition, Inc. 470 So. 2d 890 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
Citing George Engine Co., (La.
State, Div. of Admin. v. Algernon Blair, Inc. 415 So. 2d 612 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
In George Engine Co., Inc., v. Southern Shipbuilding Corp., our supreme court distinguished Bodman, saying, "the Bodman case involved a factual issue of contract performance, whereas the case at bar involves the legal issue of the validity in its inception of the contract itself, based on the alleged lack of valid consent."
State, Through Office of Governor v. LW EATON CONST. CO. 392 So. 2d 477 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
West Baton Rouge Parish School Board v. T. R. Ray, Inc., George Engine Company
State ex rel. Office of the Governor v. L. W. Eaton Construction Co. 392 So. 2d 475 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
George Engine Co. v. Southern Shipbuilding Corp. 376 So. 2d 1040 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
Distinguished West Baton Rouge Parish Sch. Bd. v. TR Ray, Inc. 367 So. 2d 332 La. 1979
9:4201; Standard Co. of New Orleans
STANDARD CO., ETC. v. Elliott Const. Co., Inc. 363 So. 2d 671 La. 1978
Continuing, the Court of Appeal noted the recent decision of George Engine Co., where this court held that the court, not the arbitrator, had to decide the validity of the contract attacked for lack of consent and that it would be absurd to require arbitration under a contract *674 that did not legally exist.
West Baton Rouge Parish School Board v. T. R. Ray, Inc. 361 So. 2d 300 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
George Engine Co., Inc. v. Southern Shipbuilding Corporation, et al.
Standard Co. of New Orleans v. Elliott Construction Co. 359 So. 2d 224 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
In the recent decision of George Engine Company, Inc. v. Southern Shipbuilding Corporation, La., (1977), the Supreme Court held that the court, not the arbitrator, had to decide the question of invalidity of the contract because of lack of consent; that it would be absurd to require arbitration under a contract that did not legally exist.