DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Morphy, Makofsky & Masson, Inc. v. CANAL PLACE 2000, 538 So. 2d 569.

40 citing documents.

  • Michael Miazza, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State … La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2024
    Morphy, Makofsky & Masson, Inc. v. Canal Place 2000, (La.
  • Yavonka G. Archaga Versus Tonya Johnson, Garron Johnson and Johnson and Johnson Law Offices, LLC La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2019
    Morphy, Makofsky & Masson, Inc. v. Canal Place 2000, (La.
  • Swaggart v. Doe 216 So. 3d 1118 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2017
    art. 1927; Morphy, Makofsky & Masson, Inc. v. Canal Place 2000, (La.
  • Crescent City Cabinets & Flooring, L.L.C. v. Grace Tama Development Co. 203 So. 3d 408 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    3 Cir. 6/15/94) , (citing Morphy, Makofsky & (La.
  • DBR Associates, L.L.C. v. Burnell 186 So. 3d 1225 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    Bordelon v. Comeaux Furniture & Appliance, Inc., 97-2864, p. 2 (La.2/13/98), ; Morphy, Makofsky & Masson, Inc. v. Canal Place 2000
  • Bayou Rapides Corp. v. Michael Dole, Et Ux. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
    3 Cir. 6/15/94), writ denied, and Morphy, Makofsky & and noted the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in accord, SMP Sales Management, Inc. v. Fleet Credit Corp., 960 F.2d 557 (5th Cir. 1992) relying on Morphy.
  • Bayou Rapides Corp. v. Dole 165 So. 3d 373 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    3 Cir. 6/15/94) , , writ denied, and Morphy, Makofsky & and noted the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in accord, SMP Sales Management, Inc. v. Fleet Credit Corp., 960 F.2d 557 (5th Cir.1992) relying on Morphy.
  • Paul J. Allain, Architect (Apac) v. Tripple B Holdings, LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    2/13/98), (quoting Morphy, Makofsky & Masson, Inc. v. Canal Place 2000, ).
  • Allain v. Tripple B Holding, LLC 128 So. 3d 1278 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    Instead, the law will imply in the contract a provision that the party ‘would be paid a reasonable sum for his services.’” Bordelon v. Comeaux Furniture & Appliance, Inc., 97-2864, p. 2 (La.2/13/98), (quoting Morphy, Makofsky & Masson, Inc. v. Canal Place 2000, ).
  • Sam Staub Enterprises, Inc. v. Chapital 88 So. 3d 690 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    They argue that pursuant to Morphy, Makofsky & Masson, Inc. v. Canal Place 2000, if there is an enforceable remedy or agreement, quantum meruit cannot apply.
  • Tallulah Const. v. Ne La Delta Development 982 So. 2d 225 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
    2 Cir. 6/29/05), [6] and Morphy, Makofsky & Masson v. Canal Place 2000, the court found that although no definitive agreement had been reached with regard to price, this was not fatal to the agreement, and that the parties also had a recent history of contracting for the construction of homes in Tallulah, Louisiana.
  • Michael R. Garber v. Badon & Ranier La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    Further, Morphy, Makofsky & Masson, Inc. v. Canal Place 2000, held that the existence of a claim on an express or implied contract precludes application of the unjust enrichment theory, because the potential claim constitutes a practical remedy at law available to the impoverishee.
  • Garber v. Badon & Ranier 981 So. 2d 92 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    Further, Morphy, Makofsky & Masson, Inc. v. Canal Place 2000, held that the existence of a claim on an express or implied contract precludes application of the unjust enrichment theory, because the potential claim constitutes a practical remedy at law available to the impoverishee.
  • MATRIX CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. v. Patel 973 So. 2d 180 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
    Morphy, Makofsky & Masson, Inc. v. Canal Place 2000, , and 575 (La.
  • Jackson v. CAPITOL CITY FAMILY HEALTH CENT. 928 So. 2d 129 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
    Morphy, Makofsky & Masson, Inc. v. Canal Place 2000, 575 (La.1989).
  • Tuminello v. Dawson 911 So. 2d 321 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
    Morphy, Makofsky & Masson, Inc. v. Canal Place 2000
  • Biedenharn v. Culp 911 So. 2d 313 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
    Morphy, Makofsky & Masson, Inc. v. Canal Place 2000, Fogleman v. Cajun Bag & Supply Company, 93-1177 (La.App.
  • Dubois Const. Co. v. Moncla Const. Co. 907 So. 2d 855 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
    Morphy, Makofsky & Masson, Inc. v. Canal Place 2000
  • Gulfstream Services v. Hot Energy Services 907 So. 2d 96 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
    See Morphy, Makofsky & Masson, Inc. v. Canal Place 2000, -75 (La.1989); (La.App.
  • Penton v. Healy 894 So. 2d 537 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
    The Louisiana Supreme Court in Bordelon v. Comeaux Furniture and Appliance, Inc., 1997-2864 (La.2/13/98), discussed the method a court should use to ascertain a "reasonable sum" for services in the context of a contract without a fixed price, as follows: In Morphy, Makofsky & Masson, Inc. v. Canal Place 2000, this court recognized that the fact the amount of compensation a party is to receive for his services was not agreed upon does not vitiate the contract.
  • Webb v. Webb 835 So. 2d 713 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    See Morphy, Makofsky & Masson, Inc. v. Canal Place 2000
  • COASTAL ENVIRON. SPECIALISTS, INC. v. Chem-Lig International, Inc. 818 So. 2d 12 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    In Morphy, Makofsky & Masson, Inc. v. Canal Place 2000, the Louisiana Supreme Court held that the existence of a claim on an express or implied contract precludes application of the unjust enrichment theory, because the potential claim constitutes a practical remedy at law available to the impoverishee.
  • Bieber-Guillory v. Aswell 723 So. 2d 1145 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
    Relying on the Supreme Court's discussion of quantum meruit in Morphy, Makofsky & (La.
  • Bordelon v. Comeaux Furniture & Appliance, Inc. 705 So. 2d 740 La. 1998
    In Morphy, Makofsky & Masson, Inc. v. Canal Place 2000, this court recognized that the fact the amount of compensation a party is to receive for his services was not agreed upon does not vitiate the contract.
  • Louisiana Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance v. Thompson 706 So. 2d 1097 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    1 Cir.1991), citing Morphy, Makofsky, & Masson, Inc. v. Canal Place 2000
  • Dumas and Associates, Inc. v. Lewis Enterprises Inc. 704 So. 2d 433 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
    Baker v. Maclay Properties Co., supra ; Morphy, Makofsky & Masson, Inc. v. Canal Place 2000
  • Bordelon v. Comeaux Furniture & Appliance, Inc. 701 So. 2d 1032 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1997
    Morphy, Makofsky & Masson, Inc. v. Canal Place 2000, Simon v. Fasig-Tipton Co., 92-173 (La.App.
  • Executive Recruitment v. Boston Scientific Corp. 680 So. 2d 51 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    See Civil Code article 1779 and Morphy, Makof- *52 sky & Masson, Inc. v. Canal Place 2000
  • Deubler Elec. Inc. v. Knockers of Louisiana 665 So. 2d 481 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
    In Morphy, Makofsky & Masson, Inc. v. Canal Place 2000, our Supreme Court held that the existence of a claim on an express or implied contract precludes application of the unjust enrichment theory, because the potential claim constitutes a practical remedy at law available to the impoverishee.
  • Gray v. McCormick 663 So. 2d 480 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
    As shown in Morphy, Makofsky & Masson, Inc. v. Canal Place 2000, (La.
  • Simon v. Fasig-Tipton Co. 652 So. 2d 1351 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
    Morphy, Makofsky & Masson, Inc. v. Canal Place 2000, et al
  • Baker v. MacLay Properties Co. 648 So. 2d 888 La. 1995
  • Larose-Perniciaro Corp. v. St. Bernard Parish Water & Sewerage Commission 648 So. 2d 432 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
    article 1779; Morphy, Makofsky & Masson, Inc. v. Canal Place 2000
  • Fogleman v. Cajun Bag & Supply Co. 638 So. 2d 706 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
    The Supreme Court most recently addressed the status of quantum meruit in Morphy, Makofsky &amp
  • Scott v. Wesley 589 So. 2d 26 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
    In Morphy, Makofsky & Masson, Inc. v. Canal Place 2000, our Supreme Court held that the existence of a claim on an express or implied contract precludes application of the unjust enrichment theory, because the potential claim constitutes a practical remedy at law available to the impoverishee.
  • Strozier v. Clay Water System, Inc. 573 So. 2d 595 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
    Morphy, Makofsky & Masson, Inc. v. Canal Place 2000
  • Whitney Nat. Bank v. Poydras Ctr. Assoc. 557 So. 2d 422 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
    article 1779; Morphy, Makofsky & Masson, Inc. v. Canal Place 2000
  • Professional Const. Services, Inc. v. Lee M. Marcello Contractor, Inc. 550 So. 2d 968 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
  • Howell v. Rhoades 547 So. 2d 1087 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
    Thus, this case differs sharply from the recent supreme court opinion of Morphy, Makofsky & Masson v. Canal Place 2000
  • Alonzo v. Chifici 541 So. 2d 303 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
    See Morphy, Makofsky & Masson, Inc. v. Canal Place 2000 et al