Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Sullivan v. Sullivan, 671 So. 2d 315.

30 citing documents.

Norman Joseph Porche, Jr. Versus Sharon Dawsey Porche La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2024
Ericka Garner and Tyrone Hadley v. Redwood Investment Company, Cedarwood Apartments, Simeon Onwuzuligbo, XYZ Appliance Manufacturer, and XYZ … La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2023
Plant-N-Power Services, Inc. v. JRE Field Services, LLC Tex David Simoneaux, Jr., JRE Industrial Services, LLC La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2023
William Thomas Coppage v. Transdev Services, Inc., New Orleans Regional Transit Authority La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2021
4/8/96), (citing Felder v. Ga.
Jerry Harris and Elnora Harris v. Union National Fire Insurance Company La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2020
Hardy v. Hardy 273 So. 3d 448 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
4/8/96), , 317-18 (When an agreement is reduced to writing, it must be signed by the parties or their agents); Dozier v. Rhodus, 08-1813 (La.App.
Marietta Trust v. J.R. Logging Inc. 225 So. 3d 1144 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
4/8/96), ; Sims, 68 So.3d at 574 .
Melvin R. Lucas, Jr., Et Ux. v. Rapides Healthcare System, L.L.C. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
4/8/96), the supreme court found that an agreement dictated to a court reporter in an attorney’s office and later transcribed did “not constitute a recitation ‘in open court’ for purposes of [then La.Civ.Code art.] 3071.” The Sullivan court also discussed the purpose of La.Civ.Code art. 3071, now also La.Civ.Code art
Lucas v. Rapides Health Care System, L.L.C. 216 So. 3d 87 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
4/8/96), , the supreme court found that an agreement dictated to a court reporter in an attorney’s office and later transcribed did “not constitute a recitation ‘in open court’ for purposes of [then La.Civ.Code art.] 3071.” The Sullivan court also discussed the purpose of La.Civ.Code art. 3071, now also La.Civ.
Tate v. Ochsner Clinic Foundation 205 So. 3d 996 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
Morris, Lee & Bayle, LLC v. Macquet 192 So. 3d 198 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
5 Cir. 4/29/97), -46 ; Sullivan v. Sullivan, 95-2122 (La.4/8/96), .
Sylvia Lemoine v. Xavier Desmond Thornton La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
Lemoine v. Thornton 161 So. 3d 666 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
See also Sullivan v. Sullivan, 95-2122 (La.4/8/96), .
Bourque v. PETER KEWIT SON'S CO. 73 So. 3d 908 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
In the leading case of Sullivan v. Sullivan, 95-2122 (La.4/8/96), , the court discussed at length the requirements for a valid compromise.
Daffin v. McCool 30 So. 3d 120 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
art. 2085 references “a party,” in Sullivan v. Sullivan, 95-2122, p. 4 (La.4/8/96), -18 , the supreme court stated that for a settlement agreement to be valid and enforceable, it must either be recited in open court and capable of being transcribed from the record of the proceeding or be in writing and signed by the parties or their agents.
Dozier v. Rhodus 17 So. 3d 402 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Weill maintains that one of the requirements of an enforceable settlement agreement is that if it is in writing it must be signed by all parties, citing Sullivan v. Sullivan, 95-2122 (La.4/8/96), .
Larabell v. Vega 996 So. 2d 613 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
In Sullivan v. Sullivan, 95-2122 (La.4/8/96), , the Supreme Court decided that a community property partition suit settlement was not enforceable.
City of Baton Rouge v. Douglas 984 So. 2d 746 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
See Sullivan v. Sullivan, 95-2122 (La.4/8/96), -318 .
Tran v. Allstate Insurance Co. 806 So. 2d 103 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
The trial judge held that Sullivan v. Sullivan, 95-2122 (La.4/8/96) , prohibits the granting of the Motion to Enforce Settlement where “under Article 3071, for a transaction or compromise to be valid and enforceable, it must either be recited in open court and capable of being transcribed from the record of the proceeding, a situation we are not presented with, or it must be reduced t
Huey v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 796 So. 2d 724 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
” See also, Sullivan v. Sullivan, 95-2122 (La.04/08/96), ; Lizama v. Williams, 99-1040 (La.App.
Amy v. Schlumberger Technology Corp. 771 So. 2d 669 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
Doiron v. La. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. 753 So. 2d 357 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
Sullivan v. Sullivan, 95-2122 (La.4/8/96), .
Lavan v. Nowell 708 So. 2d 1052 La. 1998
However, this court set aside that decision and remanded the case to the court of appeal to reconsider in light of our recent decision in Sullivan v. Sullivan, 95-2122 (La.4/8/96); .
Abadie v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. 712 So. 2d 932 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
Distinguished Soldani v. Schweter 701 So. 2d 1023 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
|7In Sullivan v. Sullivan, 95-2122, (La.4/8/96), , our Supreme Court examined Civil Code Article 3071 under facts distinguishable from the case at bar.
Lavan v. Nowell 702 So. 2d 315 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
The supreme court granted writs, vacated the judgment of this court and remanded it with instructions for us to reconsider our judgment in light of Sullivan v. Sullivan, 95-2122 (La.4/8/96); .
DeSoto v. DeSoto 694 So. 2d 1043 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1997
In Sullivan v. Sullivan, 95-2122 (La.4/8/96), , the supreme court decided that a community property partition suit settlement was not enforceable.
Desoto v. Desoto 694 So. 2d 1043 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
In Sullivan v. Sullivan, 95-2122 (La.4/8/96), , the supreme court decided that a community property partition suit settlement was not enforceable.
Lavan v. Nowell 683 So. 2d 255 La. 1996
Lavan v. Nowell 676 So. 2d 1192 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996