DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Harvey v. Richard, 7 So. 2d 674.

38 citing documents.

  • First National Bank, USA v. DDS Construction, LLC 91 So. 3d 944 La. 2012
    158, 170-71 , -79 (1957); -12 , (1942) (Rogers, J., dissenting); (La.
  • Quality Finance Co. v. Mitchell 423 So. 2d 1262 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    4th Cir. 1980); Harvey C. Richard
  • Jordan v. Sutton 424 So. 2d 305 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
  • Jackson v. Continental Cas. Co. 402 So. 2d 175 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
  • Chambers v. PAROCHIAL EMPLOYEES'RETIREMENT SYSTEM 398 So. 2d 102 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
    Rodden v. Davis, supra; , (1942); (La.App.
  • Duthu v. ALLEMENTS'ROBERSON MACH. WORKS, INC. 393 So. 2d 184 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    Westenberger, supra; , (1942); Parker v. Ohio Oil Co., 191 La.
  • Twillie v. HB Zachry Co. 380 So. 2d 747 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
  • Daspit v. City of Alexandria 342 So. 2d 683 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
  • Westenberger v. State, Department of Education 333 So. 2d 264 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    Parker v. Ohio Oil Co., 191 La.
  • Rodden v. Davis 293 So. 2d 578 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1974
  • Frazer v. Day 292 So. 2d 870 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
    the court said: "The cases holding that estoppels are not favored by our courts are legion in our jurisprudence.
  • Gordon v. Culbertson 296 So. 2d 401 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
    293, 295 ] Similarly, , , the court held: “ * * It is axiomatic under the law and jurisprudence of this state that parol evidence is inadmissible to create a title in one who never owned the property * * * ’ (Ceromi v. Harris, 187 La.
  • Sherwood v. Stein 244 So. 2d 647 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1971
  • Choctaw Home Builders, Inc. v. Lena, Inc. 223 So. 2d 23 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
    Articles 2275 and 2440; , .
  • Muhleisen v. Allstate Insurance Company 203 So. 2d 847 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1967
  • Muff v. Algermissen 198 So. 2d 742 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
    For this reason all of the cases on this question predicate their holdings on equitable principles.” With reference to invocation of estoppel, the Supreme Court, through Chief Justice Fournet, , , (1942) : “The cases holding that estoppels are not favored by our courts are legion in our jurisprudence.
  • Little v. Haik 163 So. 2d 558 La. 1964
    *131 97, and Lawrence v. Claiborne, 215 La.
  • Shirey v. Campbell 151 So. 2d 557 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1963
    Hebert v. Champagne, 144 La.
  • Beatty v. Vining 147 So. 2d 37 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1962
  • Hattiesburg Manufacturing Co. v. Pepe 140 So. 2d 449 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
    in connection with the issue of estoppel.
  • State ex rel. Langridge v. Harris 138 So. 2d 197 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1962
  • Levy v. Bonfouca Hunting Club 136 So. 2d 567 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
    Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. v. Thompson, 222 La.
  • British American Oil Producing Company v. Grizzaffi 135 So. 2d 559 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
    Sonnier v. Fris, 220 La.
  • Rube v. Pacific Insurance Company of New York 131 So. 2d 240 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
    Coco v. Nolin, La.App., ; Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. v. Thompson, 222 La.
  • Prestridge v. Humble Oil & Refining Company 131 So. 2d 810 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
    19 ; , ; Cheramie v. Stiles, 215 La.
  • Atlantic Refining Company v. Golson 127 So. 2d 341 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1961
    In the case of Harvey v. Richard, 1942, et al., , , rehearing denied.
  • Perry v. Perry 122 So. 2d 829 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
  • Hadwin v. Sledge 116 So. 2d 114 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1959
    in the course of which the court stated: "`The authorities are not agreed in respect to the question whether the knowledge of a party respecting the purport and effect of an instrument may be presumed from the sole fact of his having attested it.
  • Jackson v. Golson 111 So. 2d 876 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
    In this connection the opinion of Mr. Justice (now Chief Justice) , , is particularly appropriate.
  • Eaton v. Eaton 81 So. 2d 371 La. 1955
    As is pointed out in the Rousse case “estoppel is based on a course of action pursued by a person which results to his detriment and prejudice and which he would not have followed had he not been mislead by the actions of another party.” And, , , “The cases holding that estoppels are not favored by our courts are legion in our jurisprudence.
  • Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. v. Thompson 64 So. 2d 202 La. 1953
    Estoppels are not favored in law; and, , , “Whenever estoppel is pleaded as an element of a cause of action, it must be pleaded specifically, the burden of proving the facts upon which the estoppel is founded, as well as the affirmative showing that he was misled by the acts and forced to act to his prejudice, resting upon the party invoking th
  • Sonnier v. Fris 58 So. 2d 393 La. 1952
    and authorities cited therein.
  • Sonnier v. Fris 58 So. 2d 393 La. 1952
    and authorities cited therein.
  • Hayward v. Carolina Ins. Co. 51 So. 2d 405 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1951
    at page 677 (4, 5) stated: “The cases holding that estoppels are not favored by our courts are legion in our jurisprudence.
  • Lawrence v. Claiborne 41 So. 2d 680 La. 1949
  • Jones v. Southern Natural Gas Co. 36 So. 2d 34 La. 1948
    604 ; , , and authorities therein cited.
  • Cernich v. Cernich 27 So. 2d 266 La. 1946
    In such a case the answers to the interrogatories become a part of the pleadings and put an end to the case, one way or the other, for the simple reason that the party claiming a verbal title has no written evidence of his title, and parol evidence is not admissible.” , , we find the following expression : “ * * * ‘It is axiomatic under the law- and jurisprudence of this state that parol evidence is inadmissible to create a title *428 in one who never owned the property * * * ’ (Ceromi v. Harris
  • Federal Farm Mortg. Corp. v. Hatten 26 So. 2d 735 La. 1946