Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Cust v. Item Co., 8 So. 2d 361.

30 citing documents.

First Downtown Dev. v. Cimochowski 613 So. 2d 671 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
Hawthorn, Waymouth & Carroll v. Johnson 611 So. 2d 645 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
(1942); Standard-Crescent City Surgical Supplies, Inc., (La.App.
Compadres, Inc. v. Johnson Oil and Gas Corp. 547 So. 2d 382 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
Cust v. Item Co., Ltd., , (1942); (La.App.
9 to 5 Fashions, Inc. v. Spurney 538 So. 2d 228 La. 1989
390 (1939); , (1942); Templeton v. Interstate Electric Co., 214 La.
CAJUN ELEC. POWER CO-OP., INC. v. Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp. 528 So. 2d 716 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
695 , [1965]; , [1942]; Reid v. Lowden, 192 La.
New Orleans v. United Gas Pipe Line Co. 517 So. 2d 145 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
447, 448 (1927); , (1942).
Winston v. Bourgeois, Bennett, Thokey and Hickey 432 So. 2d 936 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
For example, , (1942), the Supreme Court considered a non-compete agreement between two alleged partners.
D'Antoni v. D'Antoni 432 So. 2d 926 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
Moss v. Guarisco 409 So. 2d 323 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
[4] In recent years, , (1942), as authority for refusing to recognize a cause of action for inducing breach of contract.
Ohlhausen v. Brown 372 So. 2d 787 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1979
Re-Steel, Inc. v. Haas & Haynie-Tudor Construction Co. 344 So. 2d 696 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
Roussel Pump & Electric Co. v. Sanderson 216 So. 2d 650 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1968
(1942), the plaintiff, as in this case, cited and relied on LSA-C.C.
Shaw v. New York Fire & Marine Underwriters, Inc. 212 So. 2d 416 La. 1968
695 , ; , ; Reid v. Lowden, 192 La.
Central La. Elec. Co. v. Pointe Coupee Elec. Mem. Corp. 182 So. 2d 752 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
Delta Finance Company of Louisiana v. Graves 180 So. 2d 85 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1965
390 , (1939); Cust v. Item Co., Limited, , (1942); and Marine Forwarding & Shipping Co., Inc. v. Barone, La.App., (4th Cir.1963).
Smith v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance 174 So. 2d 122 La. 1965
(1942); Reid v. Lowden, 192 La.
Smith v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Ins. Co. 174 So. 2d 122 La. 1965
(1942); Reid v. Lowden, 192 La.
Harvey v. Travelers Insurance Company 163 So. 2d 915 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1964
289 , ; , ; and Reid v. Lowden, 192 La.
Wilty v. Jefferson Parish Democratic Executive Committee 157 So. 2d 718 La. 1963
Marine Forwarding & Shipping Co. v. Barone 154 So. 2d 528 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1963
* * *" The above declaration of public policy by our Legislature against restrictions on the spirit of free labor was held applicable to a contract of partnership (Cust v. Item Co., Limited, , ), to the rules and regulations of a pilots' association (Nelson v. Associated Branch Pilots of Port of Lake Charles, La.App., ), and to a contract of employment (Baton Rouge Cigarette Service, Inc. v. Bloomenstiel, La.App., ).
New Orleans Opera Guild, Inc. v. Local 174, Musicians Mutual Protective Union 134 So. 2d 901 La. 1961
If the natural tendency or probable effect of the combination or monopoly is the restraint of trade by stifling competition or to discourage enterprise' and industry, the combination or monopoly is deemed to be detrimental to the public welfare and falls within the teeth of the law.” , , cited in the majority opinion, is not apposite, for the reason that the facts and circumstances therein are entirely different from the facts and circumstances in the instant case.
SCHEINUK FLORIST, INC. v. Southern Bell T. & T. Co. 128 So. 2d 683 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1961
1147 ; Cust v. Item Co., 1942, , ; Cusachs & Co. v. Sewerage & Water Board of New Orleans, 1906, 116 La.
New Orleans Opera Guild, Inc. v. Local 174, Musicians Mutual Protective Union 127 So. 2d 358 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
See Cust v. Item Company, Ltd., , ; wherein it said: “But it is now well settled that one who is not a party to a contract is not liable in damages to one of the parties * * * for inducing the other party to breach the contract.” c) The main contention that plaintiff makes and to which it devotes almost all of its voluminous petitio
Knott v. Litton 81 So. 2d 124 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1955
Cust v. Item Co., Limited, , ; Wallace v. Miller, 15 La.Ann.
Lewis v. Travelers Indemnity Company 81 So. 2d 178 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1955
286 ; Cust v. Item Company, Ltd., 1942, , ; Cox v. Shreveport Packing Company, 1948, 213 La.
Nelson v. Associated Branch Pilots of Port of Lake Charles 63 So. 2d 437 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
117 ; and Cust v. Item Co., Ltd., , .
Florida Molasses Co. v. Berger 55 So. 2d 771 La. 1951
286 ; , and Cox v. Shreveport Packing Co., 213 La.
Florida Molasses Co. v. Berger 55 So. 2d 771 La. 1951
286 ; , and Cox v. Shreveport Packing Co., 213 La.
Templeton v. Interstate Electric Co. 37 So. 2d 809 La. 1948
However, under the well settled law of this state that “one who is not a party to a contract is not liable in damages to one of the parties to the contract for inducing the other party to breach the contract” ( , , and the authorities therein cited), the defendant companies are not answerable in damages in this instance.
Loesch v. R.P. Farnsworth Co. 12 So. 2d 222 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1943
This was shown in an opinion written by Chief Justice O'Niell in Cust v. Item Co., Limited, , , 363, in which the plaintiff sought to hold liable the defendant on the theory that the defendant had induced a third party to breach a contract between the said third party and the plaintiff.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by