DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Dugas v. Guillory, 719 So. 2d 719.

17 citing documents.

  • Superior Trucking, LLC v. Sasol Chemicals, LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
    3 Cir. 10/7/98), -25, we said “As expressed in La.Civ.Code art.1967, however, a party’s reliance on a gratuitous promise made without the required formalities is not reasonable and, thereby, insufficient to sustain a claim of detrimental reliance.” And in LeBlanc v. Thibodeaux, 18-96, pp. 10-11 (La.App.
  • Mayehaul Trucking, LLC v. Sasol Chemicals LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
    3 Cir. 10/7/98), -25, we said “As expressed in La.Civ.Code art.1967, however, a party’s reliance on a gratuitous promise made without the required formalities is not reasonable and, thereby, insufficient to sustain a claim of detrimental reliance.” And in LeBlanc v. Thibodeaux, 18-96, pp. 10-11 (La.App.
  • Gr Restaurants, LLC v. Suzanne Savoy Santillo, LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
    3 Cir. 10/7/98), further explained: Since the enactment of La.Civ.Code art.1967, Louisiana courts have found detrimental reliance to occur despite the fact an onerous contract may lack a requisite formality, such as written execution in authentic form, provided the requirements of La.Civ.Code art.
  • GR Rests., LLC v. Suzanne Savoy Santillo, LLC 275 So. 3d 50 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
    3 Cir. 10/7/98), , 725, further explained: Since the enactment of La.Civ.Code art.1967, Louisiana courts have found detrimental reliance to occur despite the fact an onerous contract may lack a requisite formality, such as written execution in authentic form, provided the requirements of La.Civ.Code art.1967 are satisfied.
  • Leblanc v. Thibodeaux 256 So. 3d 1071 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
    3 Cir. 10/7/98) , , explaining the difference between an enforceable onerous promise and an unenforceable gratuitous promise.
  • Randy Leblanc v. Fred Alan Thibodeaux La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
    3 Cir. 10/7/98), explaining the difference between an enforceable onerous promise and an unenforceable gratuitous promise.
  • Jose Raful Martinez v. George Robert Rivet, Trustee of Rivet Family Trust La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
    3 Cir. 10/7/98), and Cenac v. Hart, 98-1679 (La.App.
  • James Gary Gobert v. Derrick E. Haley, Et Ux. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
    3 Cir. 10/7/98), and Cenac v. Hart, 98-1679 (La.App.
  • R. Alan Kite v. Kite Bros. LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
    3 Cir. 10/7/98), and Cenac v. Hart, 98-1679 (La.App.
  • Kite Bros. LLC v. R. Alan Kite La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
    3 Cir. 10/7/98), and Cenac v. Hart, 98-1679 (La.App.
  • Benton v. Clay 123 So. 3d 212 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
  • Bcm, L.L.C. v. Roy Clifton Cheatwood La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
    3 Cir. 10/7/98), writ denied, 95-2281 (La.
  • John W. Stone Oil Distributor, LLC v. RIVER OAKS CON. & DEV., INC. 986 So. 2d 103 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
    3 Cir. 10/7/98) , , also involved an alleged oral promise to transfer stock and is similarly not persuasive because it did *107 not involve immovable property and there was some written evidence introduced to support plaintiffs' claims.
  • Wooley v. Lucksinger 961 So. 2d 1228 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
    3 Cir. 10/7/98), -725 ; Schell v. NK Enters., Inc., 96-0362, pp. 3-4 (La.App.
  • Rhoads v. Quicksilver Brokers, Ltd. 801 So. 2d 1284 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
    3 Cir. 10/7/98) , , in which former employees of a company brought action against the principal for breach of an oral promise to transfer 65% of the company's stock to the employees, the court held that under La.C.C.
  • Cenac v. Hart 741 So. 2d 690 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
  • Hesse v. Champ Service Line 732 So. 2d 707 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999