Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Luther v. Iom Co., 130 So. 3d 817.

55 citing documents.

23rd Psalm Trucking, L.L.C. v. Madison Parish Police Jury La. 2025
10/15/13), 4 The court found Psalm Trucking did not prove it relied upon unequivocal advice from an unusually authoritative source, as required for a detrimental reliance 4 Luther reiterated that establishing a detrimental reliance claim against a government agency requires: “(1) unequivocal advice from an unusually autho
Police Jury of Calcasieu Parish v. Indian Harbor Insurance Co. La. 2024
Daniel Russo and Reilly Cavanaugh Versus Onpath Federal Credit Union La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2024
Christina McCormick v. Emily D. Wilhite and Blake Wilhite La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2024
10/15/13), and citations therein; City of Ruston v. Womack & Sons Const. Group Inc., 55,328 (La.
23rd Psalm Trucking, L.L.C v. Madison Parish Police Jury La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2024
10/15/13), held that “...
Catherine Evans, Et Al. v. Abubaker, Inc., Et Al. La. 2024
10/15/13), Cheramie Services, Inc. v. Shell Deepwater Production, Inc., 09-1633, p. 16 (La.
Amerifactors Financial Group, LLC v. Dunham Price Group, LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2023
Nohc, Inc. v. Erroll G. Williams, Assessor, Parish of Orleans; Norman White, Director of Finance for the City … La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2023
Daniel J. Saloom, Et Al. v. State Of Louisiana, Department Of Transportation And Development La. 2022
10/15/13) , ; Morris v. Friedman , 94-2808 (La.
Stephen Medwick, Maxwell Perry, Brandon Russell, and Scott Peluso v. MADCON Corporation La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2022
Deanna Smith v. State of Louisiana Through the Department of Transportation and Development La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
See Luther v. IOM Company LLC, 13– 0353 (La.10/15/13), Cheramie Services, Inc. v. Shell Deepwater Production, Inc., 09–1633 (La.4/23/10)
In Re: Judge Johnell M. Matthews Baton Rouge City Court East Baton Rouge Parish State Of Louisiana Judiciary … La. 2022
Terrance Bolden, Heidi Bolden, And Taylor Bolden Vs. La. 2022
10/15/13), Dejoie v. Medley , 08-2223, p. 10 (La.
Succession of Evlyn Northington Farris Angus La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2022
10/15/13), Hansen v. River Cities Disposal Co., Inc., 51,700 (La.
MacRo Companies, Inc. v. Dearybury Oil & Gas, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2021
10/15/13), )(citations omitted)(emphasis added), this court outlined the tenets of detrimental reliance, explaining: 4 The doctrine of detrimental reliance is designed to prevent injustice by barring a party from taking a position contrary to his prior
Charles Harper Brignac, Jr. v. Monica Alleman Brignac La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2021
Community Development Capital v. Housing Corporation of America, Gregory Swafford, and Vanessa Marie Caliste Swafford and Holding Renaissance … La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2021
Cedrick Landry v. Brittany Usie La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
10/15/13), Plaintiffs fail to point to any representation on the part of Defendants or Defendants’ counsel upon which they relied.
Julie Gordon Kitziger Versus Michael F. Mire La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2019
Gr Restaurants, LLC v. Suzanne Savoy Santillo, LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
GR Rests., LLC v. Suzanne Savoy Santillo, LLC 275 So. 3d 50 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
Acurio v. Cage 257 So. 3d 824 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2018
10/15/13), ; Hansen v. River Cities Disposal Co., Inc. , 51,700 (La.
Eskine v. City of Gretna 240 So. 3d 338 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
Neosha Robertson, Indiv. & O/B/O the Minor Children v. the Netherlands Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
10/15/13), See also Degueyter v. First American Title Co., 17-78 (La.App.
Hansen v. River Cities Disposal Co. 245 So. 3d 213 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2017
Lydia Degueyter v. First American Title Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
Degueyter v. First American Title Co. 230 So. 3d 652 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
Semco, LLC v. Grand Ltd. 221 So. 3d 1004 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
Heath v. Continental Casualty Co. 200 So. 3d 911 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
art. 967(B); Luther v. IOM Co., 13-0353 (La.10/15/13), ; Brooks v. Transamerica Financial Advisors, 45,833 (La.App.2d Cir.2/2/11), .
Autovest, L.L.C. v. Nash 197 So. 3d 258 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
art. 967(B); Luther v. IOM Co., 13-0353 (La.10/15/13), ; Brooks v. Transamerica Financial Advisers, 45,833 (La.App.2d Cir.2/2/11), .
Passon v. Fields 196 So. 3d 645 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
10/15/13), ; Brooks v. Transamerica Financial Advisors, 45,833 (La.App.2d Cir.02/02/11), .
Karen Weems v. Electric Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
Weems v. Electric Ins. Co. 193 So. 3d 1214 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
“A genuine issue is one as to which reasonable persons could disagree; if reasonable persons could reach only one conclusion, there is no need for trial on that issue and summary judgment is appropriate.” Luther v. IOM Co. LLC, 13-0353, p. 5 (La.10/15/13), .
Delta Staff Leasing, LLC v. South Coast Solar, LLC 194 So. 3d 745 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
Luther v. IOM Co. LLC, 13-353, p. 10 (La.10/15/13), .
Marie M. Coburn v. Janis Dixon La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
See Luther v. IOM Company LLC, 13-0353 (La.10/15/13), Cheramie Services, Inc. v. Shell Deepwater Production, Inc., 09-1633 (La.4/23/10)
Gerald Castille v. St. Martin Parish School Board La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
10/15/13), the supreme court set forth the elements of proof required in a detrimental reliance case: The doctrine of detrimental reliance is designed to prevent injustice by barring a party from taking a position contrary to his prior acts, admissions, representations, or silence.
Castille v. St. Martin Parish School Board 190 So. 3d 1225 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
In Luther v. IOM Co. LLC, 13-353, pp. 10-11 (La.10/15/13), , the supreme court set forth the elements of proof required in a detrimental reliance case: The doctrine of detrimental reliance is designed to prevent injustice by barring a party from taking a position contrary to his prior acts, admissions, representations, or silence.
Coburn v. Dixon 190 So. 3d 816 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
See Luther v. IOM Company LLC, 13-0353 (La.10/15/13), ; Cheramie Services, Inc. v. Shell Deep-water Production, Inc. , 09-1633 (La.4/23/10), .'
Patriot Contstruction & Equipment,llc v. Rage Logistics, LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
Patriot Construction & Equipment, LLC v. Rage Logistics, LLC 215 So. 3d 844 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
Thus, in order to successfully assert a claim for detrimental reliance, a plaintiff must establish: “(1) a representation by conduct or word; (2) justifiable reliance; and (3) a change in position to one’s detriment because of the reliance.” Luther v. IOM Co. LLC, 13-353, pp. 10-11 (La.10/15/13), .
Lewis v. Young 187 So. 3d 531 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
Reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Mr. Lewis, as the nonmoving party, see Luther v. IOM Co. LLC, 13-0353, p. 5 (La.10/15/13), , we find that defendants made a prima facie showing that there was an absence of factual support for an essential element of the legal malpractice claim.
Lee v. McGovern 169 So. 3d 814 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
Luther v. IOM Co. LLC, 2013-0353 (La.10/15/13), ; Hines v. Garrett, 2004-0806 (La.6/25/04), .
Gilbert v. Gottsegen 171 So. 3d 289 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
Luther v. IOM Co. LLC, 13-0353 (La.10/15/13), .
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Chardonnay Village Condominium Ass'n 171 So. 3d 301 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
Luther v. IOM Co. LLC, 13-0353 (La.10/15/13), .
Rain & Hail, L.L.C. v. Davis 165 So. 3d 1204 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
art. 967(B); Luther v. IOM Co. LLC, 13-0353 (La.10/15/13), ; Brooks v. Transamerica Financial Advisers, 45,833 (La.App.2d Cir.02/02/11), .
Pertuit v. Jefferson Parish Hospital Service District No. 2 170 So. 3d 1106 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
Luther v. IOM Co. LLC, 13-0353 (La.10/15/13), .
Magee v. Worley 163 So. 3d 23 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
Luther v. IOM Co. LLC, 2013-0353 (La.10/15/13), ; First La.
Tramuta v. Lakeside Plaza, L.L.C. 168 So. 3d 775 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
Luther v. IOM Co. LLC, 13-0353 (La.10/15/13), .
Joseph Andrus Cormier, Sr., Et Ux. v. Coldwell Bankers La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
10/15/13), as follows: The doctrine of detrimental reliance is designed to prevent injustice by barring a party from taking a position contrary to his prior acts, admissions, representations, or silence.
Cormier v. Coldwell Banker 150 So. 3d 557 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
|fiOur supreme court explained detrimental reliance in Luther v. IOM Co. LLC, 13-353, pp. 10-11 (La.10/15/13), , as follows: The doctrine of detrimental reliance is designed to prevent injustice by barring a party from taking a position contrary to his prior acts, admissions, representations, or silence.