DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Morris v. Friedman, 663 So. 2d 19.

48 citing documents.

  • Belinda Lasalle v. Honorable Chelsey R. Napoleon, in Her Official Capacity as Clerk of Court for the Civil … La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2025
    11/27/95), -26 (conducting an independent review of the reasonableness of the promisee’s reliance under La.
  • Nohc, Inc. v. Erroll G. Williams, Assessor, Parish of Orleans; Norman White, Director of Finance for the City … La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2023
    11/27/95), at 26; Barnett v. Bd.
  • Daniel J. Saloom, Et Al. v. State Of Louisiana, Department Of Transportation And Development La. 2022
  • Acurio v. Cage 257 So. 3d 824 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2018
  • 429 Bourbon Street, LLC v. RMDR Investments, Inc. 230 So. 3d 256 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
  • Jose Raful Martinez v. George Robert Rivet, Trustee of Rivet Family Trust La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
    11/27/95), relying on this court’s decision in Ogden v. Ogden, 93-1413, p. 5 (La.App.
  • James Gary Gobert v. Derrick E. Haley, Et Ux. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
    11/27/95), relying on this court’s decision in Ogden v. Ogden, 93-1413, p. 5 (La.App.
  • R. Alan Kite v. Kite Bros. LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
    11/27/95), relying on this court’s decision in Ogden, noted in footnote 11(emphasis added), “[t]he addition of La.C.C.
  • Kite Bros. LLC v. R. Alan Kite La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
    11/27/95), relying on this court’s decision in Ogden, noted in footnote 11(emphasis added), “[t]he addition of La.C.C.
  • LeGardeur v. Coleman 131 So. 3d 1035 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    Co., 11-0303 (La.10/25/11), (quoting Morris v. Friedman, 94-2808 (La.11/27/95), ).
  • Luther v. Iom Co. 130 So. 3d 817 La. 2013
    See Morris v. Friedman 94-2808 (La.11/27/95), .
  • Benton v. Clay 123 So. 3d 212 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
    Mr. Clay contends that, because the agreement to buy the property jointly with Ms. Benton was not written, the doctrine of detrimental reliance does not apply, citing Morris v. Friedman, 94-2808 (La.11/27/95), .
  • Waste Management of Louisiana, LLC v. Penn-America Insurance Co. 110 So. 3d 200 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    *204 In Morris v. Friedman, 94-2808, p. 9 (La.11/27/95); , the supreme court further elaborated on this issue: “[A] party having- the means readily and conveniently available to determine the true facts, but who fails to do so, cannot claim estoppel.
  • Waste Management of Louisiana, LLC v. Penn-America Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    In Morris v. Friedman, 94-2808, p. 9 (La.11/27/95); the supreme court further elaborated on this issue: ―[A] party having the means readily and conveniently available to determine the true facts, but who fails to do so, cannot claim estoppel.
  • Brassette v. Exnicios 92 So. 3d 1077 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    s a jurisprudential doctrine involving “the voluntary conduct of a party whereby he is precluded from asserting rights against another who has justifiably relied upon such conduct and changed his position so that he will suffer injury if the former is allowed to repudiate the conduct.” MB Industries, LLC v. CNA Insurance Company, 74 So.3d at 1180 (citing Morris v. Friedman, 94-2808 (La.11/27/95), ).
  • MB Industries, LLC v. CNA Insurance Co. 74 So. 3d 1173 La. 2011
    Equitable estoppel is a jurisprudential doctrine involving “the voluntary conduct of a party whereby he is precluded from asserting rights against another who has justifiably relied upon such conduct and changed his position so that he will suffer injury if the former is allowed to repudiate the conduct.” Morris v. Friedman, 94-2808 (La.11/27/95), (quoting John Bailey Contractor, Inc. v. State, Dept. of Transportation and Development, and American Bank and Trust Co. v. Trinity Universal Ins.
  • Amitech U.S.A., Ltd. v. Nottingham Construction Co. 57 So. 3d 1043 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    it is almost always the case that it will be unreasonable to rely on an oral promise where the law requires such a promise to be in writing to be enforceable.” See Morris v. Friedman, 94-2808, p. 10 n. 14 (La.11/27/95), , 26 n. 14; see also East Tangipahoa Dev.
  • East Tangipahoa Development Co. v. Bedico Junction, LLC 5 So. 3d 238 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
    *247 In Morris v. Friedman, 94-2808 (La.11/27/95), , the Louisiana Supreme Court addressed for the first time the issue of whether a party could prevail on a claim for detrimental reliance based on an oral promise where the law required such an agreement to be in writing.
  • John W. Stone Oil Distributor, LLC v. RIVER OAKS CON. & DEV., INC. 986 So. 2d 103 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
    Morris v. Friedman, 94-2808 (La.11/27/95), .
  • Wooley v. Lucksinger 961 So. 2d 1228 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
    [11] For an excellent review of the jurisprudential cause of action for detrimental reliance that existed prior to the enactment of Article 1967 see Morris v. Friedman, 94-2808 (La.11/27/95), .
  • Mamie Trahan v. Acadia Parish Sheriff's Office La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
    In Morris v. Friedman, 94-2808, p. 9 (La.11/27/95); the supreme court further elaborated on this issue: “[A] party having the means readily and conveniently available to determine the true facts, but who fails to do so, cannot claim estoppel.
  • Trahan v. Acadia Parish Sheriff's Office 950 So. 2d 151 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
    In Morris v. Friedman, 94-2808, p. 9 (La.11/27/95); , the supreme court further elaborated on this issue: “[A] party having the means readily and conveniently available to determine the true facts, but who fails to do so, cannot claim estoppel.
  • Sunrise Properties, Inc. v. Long's Preferred Products, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
  • Sunrise Properties, Inc. v. Long's Preferred Products, Inc. 925 So. 2d 1273 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
    Morris v. Friedman, 94-2808, p. 9 (La.11/27/95), .
  • Fishbein v. STATE EX REL. LSU 898 So. 2d 1260 La. 2005
    art. 4 ("When no rule for a particular situation can be derived from legislation or custom, the court is bound to proceed according to equity...."); Morris v. Friedman, 94-2808, p. 10 (La.11/27/95)
  • Fishbein v. State ex rel. Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center 898 So. 2d 1260 La. 2005
    art. 4 (“When no rule for a particular situation can be derived from legislation or custom, the court is bound to proceed according to equity..."); Morris v. Friedman, 94-2808, p. 10 (La.11/27/95), ; Palermo Land Co. v. Planning Comm’n of Calcasieu Parish
  • White v. Entergy Gulf States, Inc. 878 So. 2d 786 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
    In Morris v. Friedman, 94-2808 (La.11/27/95), , the Louisiana Supreme Court further elaborated on this issue: "[A] party having the means readily and conveniently available to determine the true facts, but who fails to do so, cannot claim estoppel.
  • Turner v. Dr. X 878 So. 2d 696 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    Co., 99-2522, p. 22 (La.8/31/00), , the supreme court reiterated the necessary requirements for a finding of detrimental reliance: "In Morris v. Friedman, 94-2808 (La.11/27/95), , and cases cited therein, we recognized three elements required for the application of detrimental reliance: (1) a representation by conduct or work; (2) justifiable reliance thereon; and (3) a change of position to one's detriment because of the reliance."
  • Darlene Turner v. Dr. X La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    8/31/00), the supreme court reiterated the necessary requirements for a finding of detrimental reliance: “In Morris v. Friedman, 94-2808 (La.11/27/95), and cases cited therein, we recognized three elements required for the application of detrimental reliance: (1) a representation by conduct or work; (2) justifiable reliance thereon; and (3) a change of position to one’s detriment because of the reliance.” Ms. Gardner simply cannot show detrimental rel
  • Blanchard v. ABC Ins. Co. 867 So. 2d 901 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
    Morris v. Friedman, 94-2808 (La.11/27/95), ; John Bailey Contractor v. State, Dept. of Transp.
  • Billieson v. City of New Orleans 863 So. 2d 557 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
    Morris v. Friedman, 94-2808, p. 6 (La.11/27/95), .
  • Roberson v. LAFAYETTE OILMAN'S SHOOT 845 So. 2d 1267 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
    In Morris v. Friedman, 94-2808, p. 9 (La.11/27/95); , the supreme court further elaborated on this issue: "[A] party having the means readily and conveniently available to determine the true facts, but who fails to do so, cannot claim estoppel.
  • Civil Service Commission of City of New Orleans v. City of New Orleans 839 So. 2d 196 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    Resort to equitable considerations and estoppel is not permitted “when in conflict with positive written law.” Morris v. Friedman, 94-2808, p. 10 (La.11/27/95), (quoting Palermo Land Co. v. Planning Comm’n of Calcasieu Par *203 ish, ).
  • Miller v. Miller 817 So. 2d 1166 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
    Morris v. Friedman, 94-2808 (La.11/27/95), .
  • Rhoads v. Quicksilver Brokers, Ltd. 801 So. 2d 1284 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
    In Morris v. Friedman, 94-2808 (La.11/27/95), , the Louisiana Supreme Court held that a claim of equitable estoppel or detrimental reliance will not lie when the law requires the contract to be in writing: "[T]here can be no recovery on the basis of equity where, as in the instant case, a positive statutory writing requirement, not adhered to, exists."
  • Barnett v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES STATE COLLEGES 809 So. 2d 184 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    Morris v. Friedman, 94-2808, p. 9 (La.11/27/95), .
  • Showboat Star Partnership v. Slaughter 789 So. 2d 554 La. 2001
    Morris v. Friedman, 94-2808, p. 8 (La.11/27/95), .
  • Nicholas v. Allstate Ins. Co. 765 So. 2d 1017 La. 2000
    In Morris v. Friedman, 94-2808 (La.11/27/95), , and cases cited therein, we recognized three elements required for the application of detrimental reliance: (1) a representation by conduct or work; (2) justifiable reliance thereon; and (3) a change of position to one's detriment because of the reliance.
  • State v. Reynolds 772 So. 2d 128 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
    3 Cir. 7/27/94) ; , reversed on other grounds, 94-2808 (La.11/27/95); .
  • Showboat Star Partnership v. Slaughter 752 So. 2d 390 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    [7] Morris v. Friedman, 94-2808, p. 8, (La.11/27/95), .
  • Major v. Telerecovery of Louisiana, Inc. 748 So. 2d 523 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    Morris v. Friedman, 94-2808 (La.11/27/95), ; Succession of Hirt, 91-1232 (La.App.
  • Cenac v. Hart 741 So. 2d 690 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
    The lower court, in granting its exception, relied on Morris v. Friedman, 94-2808 (La.11/27/95); .
  • Hall v. State ex rel. Department of Public Safety & Corrections 729 So. 2d 772 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    5 Morris v. Friedman, 94-2808, p. 9 (La.11/27/95), .
  • Dugas v. Guillory 719 So. 2d 719 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
    10:8-319 [1] and Morris v. Friedman, 94-2808 (La.11/27/95); in forcefully arguing that the absence of an enforceable, written contract obligating him to transfer stock to Mr. Dugas and Mr. Chauvin precludes an award of damages where the alleged contract itself is unenforceable is misplaced.
  • Zeringue v. Wireways, Inc. 714 So. 2d 13 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    Morris v. Friedman, 94-2808, p. 9 (La.11/27/95); .
  • Eicher v. LA. STATE POLICE, RIVERBOAT GAMING ENFOR. DIV. 710 So. 2d 799 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    See Morris v. Friedman, 94-2808 (La.11/27/95), , and cases cited therein.
  • Wilridge v. Capitol Manufacturing Co. 704 So. 2d 966 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
    This concept, also know as equitable estoppel, is explained in the case of Morris v. Friedman, 94-2808 (La.11/27/95), .
  • Schell v. NK Enterprises, Inc. 688 So. 2d 68 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1997
    [2] Reversed on other grounds in Morris v. Friedman, 94-2808 (La.11/27/95); .