Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Millsaps v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 331 So. 2d 478.

31 citing documents.

Distinguished State v. Molina Healthcare, Inc Molina Information Systems, L.L.C. D/B/A Molina Medicaid Solutions Paramax Systems Corporation And Unisys … La. 2019
Guste v. Simoni, Heck & Associates, (La.
Law Enforcement District of Jefferson Parish v. Mapp Construction, LLC 196 So. 3d 896 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
Guste v. Simoni, Heck & Associates, (emphasis added).
Walton Construction Company, LLC v. GM HORNE & COMPANY, INC. 984 So. 2d 827 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
Supreme Court in State v. Simoni, Heck & Associates, , 483 (La.1976) recognized the same principle for Civil Code article 2489, non-latent defects, that the majority recognized in Jackson v. Slidell Nissan, 96-1017 (La.App.
Joseph v. Hospital Service District No. 2 of the Parish of St. Mary 923 So. 2d 27 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
347 , (1969); State v. Simoni, Heck & Assoc.
Travis Cooper v. Louisiana Deptartment of Public Works La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
Guste v. Simoni, Heck & Assoc.
Cooper v. La. Dept. of Public Works 870 So. 2d 315 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
Guste v. Simoni, Heck & Assoc., (La.
State v. McInnis Bros. Const. 701 So. 2d 937 La. 1997
Guste v. Simoni, Heck and Associates, this court observed: Prior to this 1962 enactment, the prescriptive period of ten years was applicable to contractors upon public works for badness of workmanship and for building defects.
State ex rel. Division of Administration v. Robert E. McKee, Inc. 584 So. 2d 1205 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
Guste v. Simoni, Heck & Associates
Brown v. City of New Orleans 580 So. 2d 1093 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
State ex rel Guste v. Simoni, Heck and Associates, Gulf Oil Corp. v. State Mineral Board, on reh'g, Foster v. Breaux, 263 La.
Hostetler v. W. Gray & Co., Inc. 523 So. 2d 1359 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
Guste v. Simoni, Heck & Associates, (La.
St. Charles Parish School Bd. v. GAF Corp. 512 So. 2d 1165 La. 1987
[3] In State ex rel Guste v. Simoni, Heck & Associates, this court discussed, but did not resolve, the question of the effect of La.R.S.
CAMELLIA PLACE SUBDIVISION-BLOCK 1 ASS'N v. Willet 491 So. 2d 764 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
The Court in State ex rel Guste v. Simoni Heck & Associates, at p. 483 (La.1976), provides an explanation of a stipulation pour autrui: "To the general rule that parties to a contract cannot stipulate but for themselves, there is an exception when one makes, in his own name, some advantage for a third person the condition or consideration of a commutative contract, or onerous
Dartez v. Dixon 486 So. 2d 762 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Guste v. Simoni, Heck & Associates
Cell-O-Mar, Inc. v. Gros 479 So. 2d 386 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Guste v. Simoni, Heck & Associates
Gulf Oil Corp. v. Marine Concrete Structures, Inc. 464 So. 2d 829 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Guste v. Simoni, Heck and Associates, for the exception to the general rule of privity and in which the court held a lack of privity is no bar to the right of an injured party to sue on a contract confected for his benefit.
Moore v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. 454 So. 2d 1273 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
State ex rel Guste v. Simoni, Heck & Associates, Abney v. Allstate Ins.
Odessa House v. Goss 453 So. 2d 299 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
Guste v. Simoni, Heck and Associates, Gulf Oil Corp. v. State Mineral Board, on rehearing, Foster v. Breaux, 263 La.
State v. Cooper 449 So. 2d 1376 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
Guste v. Simoni, Heck & Associates, Andrepont v. Acadia Drilling Co., 255 La.
Wagner & Truax Co. v. Barnett Enterprises 447 So. 2d 1255 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
State v. Simoni, Heck & Associates
Campbell v. Continental-Emsco Co. 445 So. 2d 70 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
Guste v. Simoni, Heck & Associates
Corbello v. Sutton 442 So. 2d 610 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
State Ex Rel Guste v. Simoni, Heck and Associates, La., (1976).
Car Kits, Inc. v. Bolt-On Parts, Inc. 439 So. 2d 479 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
Guste v. Simoni, Heck & Associates, for this proposition.
Pickels v. Brown 431 So. 2d 880 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
Guste v. Simoni, Heck & Associates, then Supreme Court Justice Tate applied the precepts of Articles 1890 and 1902 to allow a building owner to recover from a sub-contractor for defective workmanship.
Elliot Construction Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 424 So. 2d 1202 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Guste v. Simoni, Heck & Associates
Hauserman, Inc. v. Roussel-Hart General Contractors 395 So. 2d 800 La. 1981
Guste v. Simoni, Heck & Associates
First Municipal Leasing Corp. v. State 394 So. 2d 282 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
Guste v. Simoni, Heck & Associates
Winzor v. Augenstein Const. Co., Inc. 378 So. 2d 470 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
Guste v. Simoni, Heck & Associates
Berry v. Berry 371 So. 2d 1346 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
Guste v. Simoni, Heck & Associates, there was no promise in writing directly to the State , which was to be the ultimate owner of the building; yet, the Court found that there was a stipulation in the contract intended for the advantage of the State , so the State could maintain the action against the contractor who performed engineering serv
Brown v. Sutton 356 So. 2d 965 La. 1978
Guste v. Simoni, Heck & Associates
Explained City of New Orleans v. Mark C. Smith & Sons, Inc. 339 So. 2d 321 La. 1976
Guste v. Simoni, Heck & Associates, this prescription of La.R.S.
Tri Parish Heating & Air Conditioning v. Brown 338 So. 2d 126 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
Guste v. Simoni, Heck and Associates

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by