Cited by
Opinions in Louisiana that cite Hebert v. Champagne, 81 So. 217.
-
Thebner v. Xerox Corp.
480 So. 2d 454
La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
American Security Bank of Ville Platte v. Vidrine, supra; , 81 So.
- Frazer v. Day 292 So. 2d 870 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
- Muhleisen v. Allstate Insurance Company 203 So. 2d 847 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1967
- Shirey v. Campbell 151 So. 2d 557 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1963
- Cockerham v. Aime 110 So. 2d 238 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
- Hayward v. Carolina Ins. Co. 51 So. 2d 405 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1951
- Young v. New Orleans Public Service 35 So. 2d 881 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1948
- Keller v. Haas 12 So. 2d 238 La. 1943
- Harvey v. Richard 7 So. 2d 674 La. 1942
-
Tyson v. York
188 So. 33
La. 1939
526 , an action to confirm a tax title, and in which defendant argued the question of estoppel, that: “Estoppel is a defense which should be specially pleaded in a case of this kind where title to real estate is involved.” , 81 So.
- Rembert v. Fenner & Beane 173 So. 551 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
- Jones v. Alford 172 So. 213 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
- Lawrence v. Sunrise Petroleum Co. 163 So. 742 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
-
Burglass v. Wright
159 So. 176
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
App. 146, the court said: “The facts upon which estoppel N based must be proved by the party urging the plea.” *178 , 81 So.
- Claude Neon Federal Co. v. Meyer Bros., Inc. 150 So. 410 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
-
Ribundo v. Kemp
126 So. 577
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
811 , and Hebert vs. Champagne, , 81 So.
-
Wakefield State Bank v. Baker Wakefield Cypress Co.
4 La. App. 676
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1926
In order that one should' be denied his rights or deprived of his property by reason of an equitable estoppel, it must appear that the party pleading the estoppel has been misled to his prejudice.” Hebert vs. Campagne, .