Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Theriot, 323 So. 2d 120.

118 citing documents.

Brown v. Automotive Cas. Ins. Co. 644 So. 2d 723 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Graham Resources v. Lexington Ins. 625 So. 2d 716 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
Case v. Louisiana Medical Mut. Ins. Co. 624 So. 2d 1285 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
Mellon Financial Services Corp. 7 v. Lafayette Insurance Co. 616 So. 2d 1273 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
Succession of Hirt 612 So. 2d 1054 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
Kibbe v. Lege 604 So. 2d 1366 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
as: Equitable estoppel, or "estoppel in pais," can be defined as the effect of the voluntary conduct of a party whereby he is barred from asserting rights against another party justifiably relying on such conduct and who has changed his position to his detriment as a result of such reliance.
Robbins Tire & Rubber v. Winnfield Retread 577 So. 2d 1189 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
John Bailey Contractor v. State, Dept. of Transportation and Development, American Bank & Trust Co. v. Trinity Universal Ins.
State v. Smith 571 So. 2d 746 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
American Bank & Trust Co. v. Trinity Univ.
American Bank & Trust Co. v. Hannie 568 So. 2d 216 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
Bellsouth Advertising & Publishing Corp. v. Gassenberger 565 So. 2d 1093 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
KPW ASSOCIATES v. SS Kresge Co. 535 So. 2d 1173 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
The Louisiana Supreme Court defined "equitable estoppel" or "estoppel in pais" as: "...
Overruled Gulf States Utilities Co. v. Delcambre Telephone Co. 527 So. 2d 45 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
*47 (La.1975), the Supreme Court defined equitable estoppel as the effect of voluntary-conduct of a party whereby he is barred from asserting rights against another party justifiably relying on such conduct and who has changed his position to his detriment as a result of such reliance.
Lilly v. Angelo 523 So. 2d 899 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
Dizell v. Durr 519 So. 2d 863 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
Jones v. Hospital Corp. of America 516 So. 2d 1175 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
2d 1055 (La.1983); First Federal Savings & Loan of Natchitoches v. American Bank and Trust Company, Coushatta, (La.App.
Anderson v. Anderson 506 So. 2d 200 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1987
Tate v. CHARLES AGUILLARD INS. AND REAL ESTATE, INC. 494 So. 2d 1240 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
Robichaux v. Boutte 492 So. 2d 521 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
665 , (1972) as authority for the overruling of the defendants' exception of prescription.
Allen v. Morrow 490 So. 2d 802 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
However, it enumerated certain exceptions to the general incapacity, one of which stated, “His stipulations in a marriage contract, if made with the consent of those whose authority is in such case required by law, are also valid.”
Byrd v. Byrd 488 So. 2d 1134 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
American Bank & Trust Company v. Trinity Universal Insurance Company, 251 La.
Howard Trucking Co., Inc. v. Stassi 485 So. 2d 915 La. 1986
John Bailey Contractor, Welch v. Crown Zellerbach Corp., supra
DePaul Hosp. v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of NY 487 So. 2d 143 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
the Supreme Court defined the elements of equitable estoppel as: (1) a representation by conduct or word; (2) justifiable reliance; and (3) a change in position to one's detriment because of the reliance.
Thebner v. Xerox Corp. 480 So. 2d 454 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
Housing Authority of New Orleans v. Lee 480 So. 2d 998 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Texaco v. Newton & Rosa Smith Charitable Trust 471 So. 2d 877 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
Howard Trucking Co., Inc. v. Stassi 474 So. 2d 955 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
Murray v. Reserve Life Insurance Co. 467 So. 2d 55 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Thus, there are three elements of estoppel: (1) representation of conduct or word; (2) a justifiable reliance; and (3) a change in position to one’s detriment because of that reliance.”
Lamb v. Lamb 460 So. 2d 634 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
Confederate Welding & Safety Supply, Inc. v. Bank of the Mid-South 458 So. 2d 1370 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
McDonald v. Champagne, supra .
Commercial Bank & Trust Co. v. Canale 450 So. 2d 761 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1984
In raising the defense of equitable estoppel, in which three necessary elements are discussed.
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Smith 448 So. 2d 209 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
Hebert v. McGuire 447 So. 2d 64 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
Plaintiff argues that the trial judge incorrectly applied estoppel, a doctrine "not favored" in Louisiana
John Bailey Contr. v. St., Dept. of Tr. & Dev. 439 So. 2d 1055 La. 1983
Cane River Shopping Center v. Monsour 443 So. 2d 602 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
John Bailey Contractor, Inc. v. State 425 So. 2d 326 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
McManus v. McManus 428 So. 2d 854 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
Quality Finance Co. v. Mitchell 423 So. 2d 1262 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Simmons v. Bartleet Chemical, Inc. 420 So. 2d 1273 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
Griffin v. Griffin 421 So. 2d 310 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Trinidad Petroleum Corp. v. Pioneer Natural Gas Co. 416 So. 2d 290 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
Losey v. Losey 412 So. 2d 639 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
Guillory v. Calcasieu Parish Police Jury 410 So. 2d 1213 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
and cases cited therein.
Sanders v. United Distributors, Inc. 405 So. 2d 536 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
67 , , or "equitable estoppel" to deny a previous representation, Wilkinson v. Wilkinson, La.1975, ).
Kleinpeter v. Williams 405 So. 2d 336 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
Chambers v. PAROCHIAL EMPLOYEES'RETIREMENT SYSTEM 398 So. 2d 102 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
Richardson v. LOUISIANA FARM BUREAU, ETC. 393 So. 2d 200 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
Pierce v. Pierce 397 So. 2d 62 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1981
Palmatier v. Palmatier 394 So. 2d 731 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
the 16-year old wife had entered into a prenuptial agreement that there be no community.
Boyett v. Ingram 391 So. 2d 960 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
citing Succession of Gaines, 227 La.
Watson v. Haik 393 So. 2d 173 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by