DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Pendley v. City of Plaquemine, 540 So. 2d 960.

45 citing documents.

  • Kenneth Kay Kovac v. Annette Kovac and The Succession of Johnny Kovac, Jr. La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2024
    2996, 2997, 2440; Tedesco v. Gentry Dev., Inc., (La.
  • Carla F. Gerdes Versus Monique Brisco Wife of/and Carl A. Rouege, Jr. La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2023
    The Louisiana Supreme Court has explained the grounds for agency by estoppel as “based on tort principles of preventing loss by an innocent person.” Tedesco v. Gentry Dev., Inc., (La.
  • Gregory Jones, Jr. v. the Boot Bar & Grill, C. Napco, Inc., Craig Napoli, Nancy Napoli, Aline Napoli, … La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2022
    Grabowski, 2014-0433, 2013-1409, pp. 21-22, 149 So.3d at 913-14 (quoting Tedesco v. Gentry Dev., Inc., (La.
  • Johnny Carval Havard v. Ricky Jeanlouis, Et Al. La. 2022
    stretches the concept of principal - mandatary and its related form requirements to unprecedented lengths.1 Notably, even in the principal -mandatary context, legal scholars have been critical of Article 2993’s “equal dignity rule.” Adopted in 1997, Article 2993 had no counterpart in the former code articles and was based on jurisprudence, most notably Tedesco v. Gentry Development, Inc. , (La.
  • Graceland Properties, LLC Portable Buildings v. Giuliano V. Bubola and Annette M. Bubola La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2020
    0 The Louisiana Supreme Court explained the concept of apparent authority in Tedesco v. Gentry Development, Inc., ( 1989): Apparent authority is a doctrine by which an agent is empowered to bind his principal in a transaction with a third person when the principal has made a manifestation to the third person, or to the community of which the third person is a member, that the agent is authorize
  • Lucky v. Carr 264 So. 3d 693 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2019
  • J. Boone Dev., LLC v. Milton Water Sys., Inc. 249 So. 3d 888 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
    Tedesco v. Gentry Dev., Inc. , , 963 (La.1989).
  • J. Boone Development, LLC v. Milton Water System, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
    2985 and 3021.3 “In an actual authority situation the principal makes the manifestation first to the agent; in an apparent authority situation the principal makes this manifestation to a third person.” Tedesco v. Gentry Dev., Inc.
  • Noel v. Noel 225 So. 3d 1114 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
    Significantly, when the new article 2998, concerning self dealing by a man-datary, was added to the civil code in the same 1997 revisions, no adjective was used to modify the word “authority.” It seems clear to us, then, that the legislature, aware of the Tedesco [v. Gentry Development, Inc., (La.
  • Biever Realty-Benjamin, L.L.C. v. Royal Alice Properties, L.L.C. 200 So. 3d 968 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    The Supreme Court of Louisiana has explained the grounds for agency by estoppel as “based on tort principles of preventing loss by an innocent person.” Tedesco v. Gentry Dev., Inc.
  • Fluid Disposal Specialties, Inc. v. UniFirst Corp. 186 So. 3d 210 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
    Tedesco v. Gentry Dev., Inc., Walton Const. Co. v. G.M.
  • First National Bank v. Kellick's Catch Pen & Western Wear, LLC 182 So. 3d 227 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
    Tedesco v. Gentry Develop., Inc., (1989).
  • Nine-O-Five Royal Apartment Hotel, Inc. v. Atkins 151 So. 3d 739 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    Inc., the Louisiana Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether the doctrines of apparent authority and agency by estoppel 14 are applicable in cases involving a contract to sell immovable property.
  • Ed Grabowski, Et Ux. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
    This argument is based on La.Civ.Code art. 3021 which provides: “One who causes a third person to believe that another person is his mandatary is bound to the third person who in good faith contracts with the putative mandatary.” The Louisiana Supreme Court outlined the concept of apparent authority in Tedesco v. Gentry Development, Inc., (1989) (citations and footnotes omitted): Apparent authority is a doctrine by which an agent is empowered to bind his principal in a transaction with a third p
  • Grabowski v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. 149 So. 3d 899 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    This argument is based on La.Civ.Code art. 3021 which provides: “One who causes a third person to believe that another person is his mandatary is bound to the third person who in good faith contracts with the putative manda-tary.” The Louisiana Supreme Court outlined the concept of apparent authority in Tedesco v. Gentry Development, Inc., (1989) (citations and footnotes omitted): Apparent authority is a doctrine by which an agent is empowered to bind his principal in a transaction with a third
  • McLin v. HI HO, Inc. 118 So. 3d 462 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    As the Louisiana Supreme Court stated in Tedesco v. Gentry Dev., Inc., (1989): Apparent authority is a doctrine by which an agent is empowered to bind his principal in a transaction with a third person when the principal has made a manifestation to the third person, or to the community of which the third person is a member, that the agent is authorized to engage in the particular tr
  • Jefferson Parish Hospital Service District No. 2 v. K & W Diners, LLC 65 So. 3d 662 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    Tedesco v. Gentry Develop., Inc. (1989).
  • Amitech U.S.A., Ltd. v. Nottingham Construction Co. 57 So. 3d 1043 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    Tedesco v. Gentry Dev., Inc.
  • Color Stone Intern., Inc. v. LAST CHANCE CDP, LLC 986 So. 2d 707 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
    Tedesco v. Gentry Development, Inc.
  • Walton Construction Company, LLC v. GM HORNE & COMPANY, INC. 984 So. 2d 827 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
    Tedesco v. Gentry Dev., Inc.
  • Dorian M. Bennett, Inc. v. Shankle 974 So. 2d 777 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2007
    Shankle argues that the Louisiana Supreme Court's opinion in Tedesco v. Gentry Development, Inc., requires a contrary result.
  • Fernandez v. Hebert 961 So. 2d 404 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
    Although not required for disposition of the case, which dealt with a mandatary making a donation to herself on behalf of her principal — a situation wholly addressed by Article 2998 — the Rutledge court looked to Tedesco v. Gentry Dev., Inc., and concluded that by holding "in the sale of immovable property written authority is required for an agreement to sell or a contract of sale," it was "at once apparent that the Supreme Court considered the word `express' to mean `written' authority."
  • Lowman v. Merrick 960 So. 2d 84 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
    Tedesco v. Gentry Development, Inc.
  • God's Glory & Grace, Inc. v. QUIK INTERNAT. 938 So. 2d 730 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
    Tedesco v. Gentry Development, Inc., Dart Distributors, Inc. v. Foti Enterprises, Inc., (La.App.
  • Trent Holloway v. Shetler Mutual Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
    The concepts of agency and apparent authority were fully addressed by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Tedesco v. Gentry Development, Inc.
  • Holloway v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co. 861 So. 2d 763 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
    The concepts of agency and apparent authority were fully addressed by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Tedesco v. Gentry Development, Inc., (La.
  • Tresch v. Kilgore 868 So. 2d 91 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    Home Spec argues that apparent authority exists as to a third party, such as Home Spec, when it is reasonable to believe the agent had the authority to do so and cites Tedesco v. Gentry Dev., Inc., in support of this proposition.
  • Where Angels Tread, Ltd. v. Dansby 855 So. 2d 906 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
    art. 2996 [5] and Tedesco v. Gentry Development, Inc., [6] , applied to the instant case, the trial judge held that written authority from the principal is required for an agent to execute the "Offer to Lease."
  • Service Steel v. Guinn's Trailer Sales 850 So. 2d 902 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
  • Venable v. US Fire Ins. Co. 829 So. 2d 1179 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
    In Tedesco v. Gentry Development, Inc., (citations omitted) (footnote omitted), the supreme court held: Apparent authority is a doctrine by which an agent is empowered to bind his principal in a transaction with a third person when the principal has made a manifestation to the third person, or to the community of which the third person is a m
  • Rutledge v. Hibernia Corp. 808 So. 2d 765 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
    In this regard we find Tedesco v. Gentry Development, Inc., instructive.
  • McManus v. Southern United Fire Insurance 801 So. 2d 392 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    In Tedesco v. Gentry Development, Inc., (citations omitted) (footnote omitted), the supreme court held: Apparent authority is a doctrine by which an agent is empowered to bind his principal in a transaction with a third person when the principal has made a manifestation to the third person, or to the community of which the third person is a m
  • McManus v. Southern United Fire Ins. 801 So. 2d 392 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
    In Tedesco v. Gentry Development, Inc., (citations omitted) (footnote omitted), the supreme court held: Apparent authority is a doctrine by which an agent is empowered to bind his principal in a transaction with a third person when the principal has made a manifestation to the third person, or to the community of which the third person is a m
  • Waffle House, Inc. v. Corporate Properties, Ltd. 780 So. 2d 593 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    In Tedesco v. Gentry Development, Inc., the Louisiana Supreme Court discussed at length the meaning of apparent authority and the competing concepts in Louisiana of common law apparent authority and the then prevailing view in Louisiana of agency by estoppel.
  • Brockman v. Salt Lake Farm Partnership 768 So. 2d 836 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
  • J. Caldera & Co. v. La. Stadium Dist. 750 So. 2d 284 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
    [19] Tedesco v. Gentry Development, Inc.
  • Cartinez v. Reliable Amusement Co., Inc. 746 So. 2d 246 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
    Tedesco v. Gentry Dev., Inc., (citations omitted) (footnote omitted).
  • Webb v. Lagniappe Hosp. Corp. 714 So. 2d 901 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
    See Tedesco v. Gentry Development, Inc.
  • Woodward v. Steed 680 So. 2d 1320 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
    See generally Tedesco v. Gentry Development, Inc., Hayes, supra ; Ogden, supra .
  • Bank of Jena v. Robbie's Auto Body, Inc. 621 So. 2d 136 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
    Tedesco v. Gentry Development, Inc., citing Interstate Electric Co. v. Frank Adam Electric Co., 173 La.
  • Hill's Mortuary, Inc. v. Hill 619 So. 2d 1080 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
    554 (1928); Tedeseo v. Gentry Development, Inc., writ granted, , aff’d.
  • Henry v. Taco Tio, Inc. 606 So. 2d 1376 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
    Tedesco v. Gentry Development, Inc.
  • Everett v. Foxwood Properties 584 So. 2d 1233 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
    Tedesco v. Gentry Development, Inc.
  • Pittman v. Pomeroy 552 So. 2d 983 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
    Cf. Tedesco v. Gentry Development, Inc., where the court refused to order specific performance under slightly different circumstances because the prospective purchasers did not change their position in any manner in reliance on the defendant's conduct and because the defendant immediately repudiated the actions of its president.
  • Wisinger v. Casten 550 So. 2d 685 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
    Tedesco v. Gentry Development, Inc., (La.App.