Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Bourgeois v. Franklin, 389 So. 2d 358.

27 citing documents.

Sims v. USAgencies Casualty Insurance Co. 68 So. 3d 570 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Bennett v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, 95-0410 at p. 4, 665 So.2d at 86 .
Dozier v. Rhodus 17 So. 3d 402 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
” and stated therein: The Code requires that compromise agreements be in writing, by implication signed by both parties.
Mark Peltier v. Manuel Builders, LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
Our Louisiana Supreme Court, held that even though La.Civ.Code art. 3071 does not provide for the consequences of failing to reduce a compromise into writing, “a compromise which is not reduced to writing is unenforceable.” Jasmin v. Gafney, Inc.
Peltier v. Manuel Builders, LLC 976 So. 2d 785 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
Code art. 3071 does not provide for the consequences of failing to reduce a compromise into writing, “a compromise which is not reduced to writing is unenforceable.” Jasmin v. Gafney, Inc.
Executive Chiropractic Services v. Louisiana Workers' Compensation Corp. 727 So. 2d 1248 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
Brasseaux v. Allstate Ins. Co. 710 So. 2d 826 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
Lavan v. Nowell 702 So. 2d 315 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
The purpose of the writing requirement is “to serve as proof of the agreement and the acquiescence therein.”
Lavan v. Nowell 676 So. 2d 1192 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
Sullivan v. Sullivan 671 So. 2d 315 La. 1996
Bennett v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. 665 So. 2d 84 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Shell Oil Co. v. Jackson 655 So. 2d 482 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Braun Welding Supply, Inc. v. Praxair, Inc. 654 So. 2d 388 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Faulk v. Morvant 649 So. 2d 700 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
art. 3071, each of the parties to the agreement must expressly indicate its intentions, personally or through an agent, whether at the same time and in the same instrument or not.
Townsend v. Square 643 So. 2d 787 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
Similarly, the Louisiana Supreme Court stated: Inasmuch as there is no judgment on the merits outlining the obligations each party has to the other when a case is settled by the parties, the law has seen fit to require the compromise settlement, which sets out those obligations, to be reduced to writing to serve as pr
LeBlanc v. Fidelity Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. 633 So. 2d 891 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Kee v. Cuco's, Inc. 618 So. 2d 12 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
Scott v. Green 621 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
Anderson-Dunham, Inc. v. Hamilton 564 So. 2d 823 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
Vest v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. 493 So. 2d 877 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Nugent v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. 467 So. 2d 623 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
F&S EQUIP. CO. v. Intern. Matex Tank Terminals 469 So. 2d 256 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
Jasmin v. Gafney, Inc., (La.
Williams v. Winn Dixie 447 So. 2d 8 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
held: While the statute itself does not provide for the consequences of failure to reduce a compromise agreement to writing, this Court has previously held that a compromise which is not reduced to writing is unenforceable.
Nguyen v. Lengsfield Bros., Inc. 417 So. 2d 525 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
affords further insight into Martin.
Kleiner v. Ciko 417 So. 2d 54 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
the court expressed the problem facing it as follows: "In a tort suit, where the attorneys for plaintiff and defendant, ostensibly with the assent of their respective clients, recite in open court the fact and amount of a compromise settlement without having reduced it to writing, may one of the parties the
Jones v. MFA Mut. Ins. Co. 410 So. 2d 1190 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
Felder v. Georgia Pac. Corp. 405 So. 2d 521 La. 1981
Richardson v. LOUISIANA FARM BUREAU, ETC. 393 So. 2d 200 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
NOTES [1] Also, see Bourgeois v. Franklin, et al., , decided by our Supreme Court on October 6, 1980.