Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Berger v. Quintero, 127 So. 356.

36 citing documents.

Evan E. Cooper v. Baton Rouge Cargo Service, Inc. and ABC Insurance Company La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2020
Commercial Bank & Trust Co. v. Canale 450 So. 2d 761 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1984
In support of his position, , 127 So.
Harrington v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co. 441 So. 2d 1255 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
RTL CORP. v. Manufacturer's Enterprises, Inc. 429 So. 2d 855 La. 1983
McClelland v. Security Indus. Ins. Co. 426 So. 2d 665 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Ingraham Concrete Structures Inc. v. CHAMPION SHIPYARDS INC. 423 So. 2d 752 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
Louisiana Nat. Bank of Baton Rouge v. Heindel 365 So. 2d 37 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
Terra Trucks, Inc. v. Weber 346 So. 2d 275 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1977
A. R. Guglielmo, Inc. v. Weber 315 So. 2d 427 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
Charles X. Miller, Inc. v. Oak Builders, Inc. 306 So. 2d 449 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1975
Hancock v. Lincoln American Life Insurance Co. 278 So. 2d 561 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
Linda Mercantile Corporation v. Bowers 230 So. 2d 302 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
Van-Trow Olds Cadillac, Inc. v. Dodwell 229 So. 2d 154 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
ion for accord and satisfaction is not sustained by the jurisprudence of this state: “ ‘The fact that defendant’s check was for an amount admitted to be due does not prevent its acceptance — when tendered with the stipulation that the payment constituted a full settlement — from constituting an accord and satisfaction.’ Mall Tool Co. v. Poulan, La.App., , , 127 So.
Walton v. Roy 229 So. 2d 215 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
One of the earliest cases applying estoppel, which was later cited as authority for adoption of the doctrine of “accord and satisfaction”, , 127 So.
Braudaway v. United Equitable Insurance Company 208 So. 2d 359 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1968
Brindell-Bruno, Inc. v. Farnsworth & Chambers Co. 154 So. 2d 511 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
Jones v. Standard Life & Accident Insurance Company 129 So. 2d 84 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
Succession of Franz 116 So. 2d 267 La. 1959
Jefferson & Plaquemines Drainage District v. City of New Orleans 107 So. 2d 663 La. 1958
Amos v. Waggoner 85 So. 2d 58 La. 1956
Amos v. Waggoner 85 So. 2d 58 La. 1956
Oster v. Krauss Co. 84 So. 2d 460 La. 1955
Fuss v. Cordeleria De San Juan, S. A. 69 So. 2d 365 La. 1953
Geo. L. Ducros Tile Co. v. Frey Homes, Inc. 65 So. 2d 621 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
443 , decided by the Orleans Court of Appeal in 1931, , 127 So.
Henriques v. Vaccaro 56 So. 2d 236 La. 1951
Mall Tool Co. v. Poulan 40 So. 2d 512 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1949
"'* * * Where an aggregate amount is in dispute, the payment of a specified sum conceded to be due, that is, by including certain items but excluding disputed items, on condition that the sum so paid shall be received in full satisfaction, will be sustained as an extinguishment of the whole.'" , 127 So.
Schultz v. Gund 19 So. 2d 682 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1944
443 ; , *Page 687 127 So.
Selber Bros. v. Newstadt's Shoe Stores 14 So. 2d 10 La. 1943
Conner v. Harper 2 So. 2d 177 La. 1941
ition and the annexed documents are that the professional services were rendered under a written contract of employment in the form of a letter ; that a written .account was rendered and tender made thereunder; and that while the amount charged as his fee was disputed, the plaintiff accepted the tender by taking the $10,024 worth of bonds and retaining them, , 127 So.
Henry v. Swan 200 So. 839 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
Cruze v. Life Ins. Co. of Virginia 184 So. 735 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1938
In substantiation of this point, reliance is placed upon the Supreme Court’s , 127 So.
Breeland v. Kenner 174 So. 678 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
To the same effect, , 127 So.
Aronson v. Pailet 173 So. 545 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
Davis-Wood Lumber Co. v. Farnsworth & Co. 171 So. 622 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
*625 In our case of Meyers v. Acme Homestead Ass’ n, supra, we observed that it is sometimes difficult to ascertain what is the consideration given in cases such as this in order for the transaction to he binding within the meaning of the codal article, , 127 So.
Merchandise Rpt. v. Weiss Goldring 168 So. 336 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
Meyers v. Acme Homestead Ass'n 138 So. 443 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by