DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Oil Field Supply & Scrap Material Co. v. Gifford Hill & Co., 16 So. 2d 483.

26 citing documents.

  • Dean J. Guidry, Sr. v. St. Martin Parish School Board La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
    1975), writ denied, “[t]he intention of the parties is of paramount importance and must be determined in accordance with plain, ordinary and popular sense of the language used in the agreement and by giving consideration on a practical, reasonable and fair basis to the instrument in its entirety.” In Oil Field Supply & Scrap Material Co. v. Gifford Hill & Co., (1943) (emphasis added), the supreme court expressed the following rule on interpretation of contracts: We know that a contract is the la
  • Louisiana Intrastate Gas Corp. v. Walsh Bros.-Gahagan Ltd. 692 So. 2d 1177 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
  • Logan v. Louisiana Dock Co., Inc. 541 So. 2d 182 La. 1989
    497 , (1949); Oil Field Supply v. Gifford Hill & Co., Inc., , (1944); Llorens v. McCann, 187 La.
  • Walsh Bros. v. Celeron Corp. 510 So. 2d 1282 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
  • Haymon v. Holliday 405 So. 2d 1304 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    (1943), the Supreme Court expressed the following rule on interpretation of contracts: “We know that a contract is the law between the parties and that they are bound by their agreements regardless of harmful consequences, provided the agreement is not contra bones mores or in violation of some prohibit
  • Diaz v. Edward Levy Metals, Inc. 384 So. 2d 581 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    Oil Field Supply & Scrap Material Company v. Gifford Hill & Co., , .
  • House of Representatives v. Bernard 373 So. 2d 188 La. 1979
    E. g., Oil Field Supply & Scrap Material Company v. Gifford Hill & Company, , (1944).
  • Louisiana Nat. Leasing Corp. v. Family Pools, Inc. 345 So. 2d 480 La. 1977
    art. 1901; Oil Field Supply & Scrap Material Co. v. Gifford Hill & Co., , (1944); (La.App.
  • Burt v. Hebert 338 So. 2d 717 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    Oil Field Supply & Scrap Material Co. v. Gifford Hill & Co., , ; J. H. Jenkins Contractor, Inc. v. City of Denham Springs, La.App., .
  • Hodges v. DeCoteau 314 So. 2d 500 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
    Oil Field Supply & Scrap Material Co. v. Gifford Hill & Company, , ; Texaco, Inc. v. Vermillion Parish School Board, 244 La.
  • Continental Nut Co. v. Louisiana Pecan Shelling Co. 316 So. 2d 490 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
    In the case of Oil Field Supply & Scrap Material Co., v. Gifford Hill & Co., , (1943), the Supreme Court expressed the following rule on interpretation of contracts.
  • Broussard v. National Food Stores of La., Inc. 246 So. 2d 838 La. 1971
    421 , ; Oil Field Supply & Scrap Material Co. v. Gifford Hill & Co., , ; Rigouts v. Larkan, 244 La.
  • Giamanco v. Fairbanks 230 So. 2d 65 La. 1969
    However, where the issue is ás in the instant case — what are the terms of the verbal agreement — the fact that informed and experienced persons do not usually and customarily bind themselves to unjust and unreasonable obligations is a serious factor that must be taken into consideration in determining that question.5 Oil Field Supply & Scrap Material Co. v. Gifford Hill & Co, , .
  • Plantation Pipe Line Co. v. Kaiser Alum. & Chem. Corp. 222 So. 2d 905 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
    Oil Field Supply & Scrap M. Company v. Gifford Hill & Co., , .
  • JH Jenkins Contractor, Inc. v. City of Denham Springs 216 So. 2d 549 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
    733 ; Oil Field Supply & Scrap Material Company v. Gifford Hill & Company, , , and Reconstruction Finance Corporation v. Mickelberry, 189 La.
  • Meaux v. Southern Construction Corporation 159 So. 2d 156 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1963
    25 , ; Oil Field Supply & Scrap Material Co. v. Gifford Hill & Co., , .
  • Howk v. Sulphur Motor Co. 155 So. 2d 272 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
    Oil Field Supply & Scrap Material Co. v. Gifford Hill & Co., , .
  • Texaco, Inc. v. Vermilion Parish School Board 152 So. 2d 541 La. 1963
    However, where the issue is as in the instant case — what are "the terms of the verbal agreement — the fact that informed and experienced persons do not usually and customarily bind themselves to unjust and" unreasonable obligations is a serious factor that must be taken into consideration in determining that question.” Oil Field Supply & Scrap Material Co. v. Gifford Hill & Co., , .
  • Richard Apartments, Inc. v. Shadix 150 So. 2d 602 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
  • Moore v. Liberty Mutual Insurace 149 So. 2d 192 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
    of equity be followed if by so doing the terms of a contract are ignored, for the folly or wisdom of a contract is not for the court to pass upon; its terms, however onerous they may be, must be enforced if such is the clear meaning of the language used, and the intention of the parties using that language.” In the case of Oil Field Supply & Scrap Material Co. v. Gifford Hill & Co., Inc., , , the Louisiana Supreme Court said that the contract is the law between the parties and they are b
  • Garber v. Phillips Petroleum Co. 146 So. 2d 518 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
    Oil Field Supply & Scrap Material Co. v. Gifford Hill & Co., , *522 .
  • Leon v. Dupre 144 So. 2d 667 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
    201 ; Arkansas Fuel Oil Corporation v. Maggio, La.App., ; Oil Field Supply & Scrap Material Co. v. Gifford-Hill & Co., Inc., La.App., (annulled on other grounds— So.2d 483 ); Yates v. Batteford, 19 La.App.
  • Arkansas Fuel Oil Corporation v. Maggio 141 So. 2d 516 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
    Oil Field Supply & Scrap Material Co. v. Gifford-Hill & Co., Inc., La.App., (annulled on other grounds— So.2d 483 ); Yates v. Batteford, 19 La.App.
  • Becker v. Shapiro 139 So. 2d 762 La. 1962
    819 & 820: “Although this Court is vested with the power to dispose of the case finally on a writ of review, see Section 11 of Article 7 of the Constitution; Oil Field Supply & Scrap Material Co. v. Gifford Hill & Co., , , it would appear to be the better practice to remand the case to the Court of Appeal in instances where that Court has not had the opportunity, or has found it unnecessary, to review the merits of the controversy under its appellate jurisdiction.
  • Mataya v. Delta Life Ins. Co. 62 So. 2d 817 La. 1953
    920 , , it would appear to be the better practice to remand the case to the Court of Appeal in instances where that Court has not had the opportunity, or has found it unnecessary, to review the merits of the controversy under .
  • Herbert v. American Soc. of Composers, Authors & Publishers 26 So. 2d 732 La. 1946
    Article 1945 of the Revised Civil Code; Oil Field S. & S. Material Co. v. Gifford Hill & Co., , .