Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Robinson v. Hunt, 31 So. 2d 197.

17 citing documents.

State, Department of Transportation & Development v. Berry 609 So. 2d 1100 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
343 , (1942); , (1946); (La.App.
Montgomery v. Foreman 410 So. 2d 1160 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
[3] , (1947) the Louisiana Supreme Court found that a mandate could not be dissolved at the will of the principal because the mandatary had an interest in the property subject to his mandate.
Landreneau v. Granger 401 So. 2d 634 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
343 , (1942); , (1946); (La.App.
Bown v. Holland 392 So. 2d 726 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
343 , (1942); , (1946); (La.App.
Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc. 353 So. 2d 732 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
849 , ; , ; Hope v. Madison, 194 La.
Smith v. Westside Transit Lines, Inc. 313 So. 2d 371 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1975
The case of Robinson *376 v. Hunt, , (1946) does seem to support the Court's decision in that regard.
Succession of Vlaho 140 So. 2d 226 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
the attorney was employed to file suit on a 20% contingent fee basis.
Prieto Lumber Co. v. Shoultz 111 So. 2d 857 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
295 , ; , ; Succession of Land, 212 La.
Barnes Furniture Store v. Young 111 So. 2d 549 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
Succession of Turner 103 So. 2d 91 La. 1958
103 , ; , ; Sanderson v. Frost, 198 La.
Acadian Production Corp. v. Savanna Corp. 77 So. 2d 417 La. 1954
3 *855 With respect to the claimed lack of appealable interest, the matter has been decided adversely in the case of Robinson v. Hunt, on rehearing , 31 So.
Cryer v. Cryer 70 So. 2d 747 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
Our Supreme Court, , , stated: “In view of the fact that the plea of estop-pel by record filed in the instant case and sustained by the trial judge was based principally on the proposition that a party litigant will not be permitted to deny in this suit what he has solemnly acknowledged in another judicial proceeding
Sun Oil Co. v. Smith 43 So. 2d 148 La. 1949
295 , ; , ; Succession of Land, 212 La.
Jones v. Williams 39 So. 2d 746 La. 1949
2d 626 ; , ; Janney v. Calmes, 212 La.
De Maupassant v. Clayton 38 So. 2d 791 La. 1949
295 , ; Robinson v. Hunt, et al. , ; Janney v. Calmes, 212 La.
Slaton v. King 36 So. 2d 648 La. 1948
182 ; Sanderson v. Frost, supra; , and Janney v. Calmes, 212 La.
Janney v. Calmes 33 So. 2d 510 La. 1947
on the question of judicial estoppel, thus: “We therefore hold that, since the allegations contained in the tutorship proceedings, which are relied upon by the plaintiffs as constituting judicial confessions, were made in another proceeding and not in the case at bar, Article 2291 of the Revised Civil Code is without application.” In the more recent case of Robinson v. Hunt et al. (on rehearing), , , we had under consideration a plea of judicial estoppel grounded on declarations made by the plai