DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite J. Weingarten, Inc. v. Northgate Mall, Inc., 404 So. 2d 896.

26 citing documents.

  • Dr. Albert Lagraize Versus Rachele Basler, Derrick Riley and People Speak, L.L.C. La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2020
    App. 1 Cir. 2/19/09) (citing J. Weingarten, Inc. v. Northgate Mall, Inc., (La.
  • Peter Joseph Whitbeck, Et Ux. v. Robert Joseph Champagne, Jr., Et Ux. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
    J. Weingarten, Inc. v. Northgate Mall, Inc.
  • Whitbeck v. Champagne 149 So. 3d 372 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    J. Weingarten, Inc. v. Northgate Mall, Inc.
  • Royal Oldsmobile Co. v. Heisler Properties, L.L.C. 119 So. 3d 84 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    Specific performance is the preferred remedy in Louisiana, except where “it is impossible, greatly disproportionate in cost to the actual damage caused, no longer in the creditor’s interest, or of substantial negative effect upon the interests of third parties.”
  • Charter School of Pine Grove, Inc. v. St. Helena Parish School Board 9 So. 3d 209 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    J. Weingarten, Inc. v. Northgate Mall, Inc.
  • Howard v. Administrators of Tulane Ed. Fund 986 So. 2d 47 La. 2008
    J. Weingarten, Inc. v. Northgate Mall, Inc., n. 2 (La.1981).
  • Campbell v. Melton 793 So. 2d 235 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
    J. Weingarten, Inc. v. Nor-thgate Mall, Inc., (La.
  • MKM, L.L.C. v. Rebstock Marine Transportation, Inc. 773 So. 2d 776 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    In support of this assertion, Rebstock Marine and Rebco cite J. Weingarten, Inc. v. Northgate Mall, Inc., for the proposition that | ¶ 3[although specific performance is the preferred remedy for breach of a contract it may be withheld by the court when specific relief is impossible, when the inconvenience or cost of 'performing is greatly disproportionate to the damages caused, when the obligee has no real inter
  • Lombardo v. Deshotel 647 So. 2d 1086 La. 1994
    For examples, see Civil Code Article 1986, Revision Comments—1984 (b) & (c); J. Weingarten, Inc. v. Northgate Mall, Inc.
  • Weeks v. TL James & Co. Inc. 626 So. 2d 420 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
    See, e.g., Brantley v. Tremont & Gulf Railway Co., Gaharan v. State, Through DOTD, J. Weingarten, Inc. v. Northgate Mall, Inc.
  • Sonny's Pizza, Inc. v. Braley 612 So. 2d 844 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
    3d Cir.1980), reversed, (La.
  • Ouachita Parish Police Jury v. AM. WASTE AND POLLUTION CONTROL CO. 606 So. 2d 1341 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
    on other grounds (1981), citing Caffery v. Powell, supra.
  • Barras v. Hebert 602 So. 2d 186 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
    J. Weingarten Inc. v. Northgate Mall, Inc., Poole v. Guste, 261 La.
  • Gaharan v. STATE, EX REL. DODT 579 So. 2d 420 La. 1991
    Citing J. Weingarten, Inc. v. Northgate Mall, Inc., and Dyer & Moody, (La.App.
  • Ball v. Perkins College Partnership In Commendam 572 So. 2d 1118 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
    The Louisiana Supreme Court in J. Weingarten, Inc. v. Northgate Mall, Inc., stated that specific performance should not be granted “when it is impossible, greatly disproportionate in cost to the actual damage caused, no longer in the creditor’s interest, or of substantial negative effect upon the interest of third parties.” In light of the Louisiana Supreme Court’s language, w
  • Gaharan v. STATE, DOTD 566 So. 2d 1007 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
    See, also, J. Weingarten, Inc. v. Northgate Mall, Inc.
  • SREF Bon Marche Co. v. DH Holmes Co. 572 So. 2d 284 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
    See J. Weingarten, Inc. v. Northgate Mall, Inc.
  • Rovira v. Rovira 550 So. 2d 1237 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
  • Sizeler Prop. Investors, Inc. v. Gordon Jewelry Corp. 544 So. 2d 53 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
    J. Weingarten, Inc. v. Northgate Mall, Inc., (La.
  • Pogo Producing Co. v. United Gas Pipe Line Co. 511 So. 2d 809 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
    In J. Weingarten, Inc. v. Northgate Mall, Inc., the Supreme Court explained that the absence of irreparable injury is no bar to specific performance.
  • Pogo Producing Co. v. Sea Robin Pipeline Co. 493 So. 2d 909 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
    J. Weingarten, Inc. v. Northgate Mall, Inc.
  • Bonneau v. Blalock 484 So. 2d 275 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
    The case of J. Weingarten, Inc. v. Northgate Mall, Inc., (La.
  • Schneider v. Gremillion 476 So. 2d 1100 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    In this connection defendants’ motion refers us to the case of J. Weingarten, Inc. v. Northgate Mall, Inc.
  • Dunham v. Dunham 467 So. 2d 555 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    J. Weingarten Inc. v. Northgate Mall, Inc.
  • CDT, INC. v. Greener & Sumner Architects, Inc. 453 So. 2d 1252 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
    Although it may be argued that J. Weingarten, obscured the jurisprudence, an injunction should issue only when the party seeking same is threatened with irreparable loss or injury without an adequate remedy at law.
  • Moss v. Guarisco 409 So. 2d 323 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    On remand, it will be the task of the trial court to determine whether a specific performance of the Moss-Guarisco buy-sell agreement is warranted under the circumstances of the case, should plaintiffs prevail ex contractu against Anthony J. Guarisco, Sr. The trial judge will be guided by the recent pronouncements of the Supreme Court in J. Weingarten, Inc. v. Northgate Mall, Inc., in determining whether specific performance is a proper remedy in this case.