general legal principle (Louisiana) · Go Syfert
← Louisiana issues

general legal principle in Louisiana

5 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1982–2015 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Louisiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (7)

CaseFollowedCited
Whitehall Oil Company v. Boagnigreen
lactapp · 1969 · cited in 2 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 1982–2015
2 sentences

2015What if instead of one or two checks it had issued ten or more payments to claimant before his claim had been “reevaluated”? |2In his dissent in Whitehall Oil Co. v. Boagni, 217 So.2d 707, 713-14 (La.App. 3d Cir.1969), Judge (later Justice) Tate wrote: The exception sought to be applied here does violence to the general legal principle that, for the stability of society and of transactions, voluntary payments made with full knowledge of all the facts and not under duress may not subsequently be recovered, even though the amount so paid is not actually owed.

2015As Judge (Justice) Tate opined in Whitehall Oil Co., 217 So.2d at 713-14 , “The exception sought to be applied here does violence to the general legal principle that, for the stability of society and of transactions, voluntary payments made with full knowledge of all the facts and not under duress may not subsequently be recovered, even though the amount so paid is not actually owed.” Only through the voluntary action by claimant’s attorney could the insurer recover the money paid.

12
Chrysler Financial v. Gene Ducote Auto.green
lactapp · 2005 · cited in 1 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008
1 sentence

2008C.C. art. 3494 for suits on open accounts runs from the date of the last charge, entry, purchase, payment, or other transaction (citing Chrysler Financial Company, L.L.C. v. Gene Ducote Automotive, L.L.C., XXXX-XXXX (La.App. 5th Cir.3/1/05), 900 So.2d 119, 123 (prescription begins to run from the date of the last charge, purchase, payment, or credit entry on the account); Tolmas v. Weichert, 616 So.2d 244, 246 (La.App. 4th Cir.), writ denied, 620 So.2d 878 (La.1993) (the prescriptive period on an open account runs from the last charge or payment on the account); Landreneau v. Duplechin, 595 So

11
Ritchie Grocer Co. v. Deangreen
la · 1935 · cited in 1 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008
2 sentences

2008C.C. art. 3494 for suits on open accounts runs from the date of the last charge, entry, purchase, payment, or other transaction (citing Chrysler Financial Company, L.L.C. v. Gene Ducote Automotive, L.L.C., XXXX-XXXX (La.App. 5th Cir.3/1/05), 900 So.2d 119, 123 (prescription begins to run from the date of the last charge, purchase, payment, or credit entry on the account); Tolmas v. Weichert, 616 So.2d 244, 246 (La.App. 4th Cir.), writ denied, 620 So.2d 878 (La.1993) (the prescriptive period on an open account runs from the last charge or payment on the account); Landreneau v. Duplechin, 595 So

2008C.C. art. 3494 for suits on open accounts runs from the date of the last charge, entry, purchase, payment, or other transaction (citing Chrysler Financial Company, L.L.C. v. Gene Ducote Automotive, L.L.C., XXXX-XXXX (La.App. 5th Cir.3/1/05), 900 So.2d 119, 123 (prescription begins to run from the date of the last charge, purchase, payment, or credit entry on the account); Tolmas v. Weichert, 616 So.2d 244, 246 (La.App. 4th Cir.), writ denied, 620 So.2d 878 (La.1993) (the prescriptive period on an open account runs from the last charge or payment on the account); Landreneau v. Duplechin, 595 So

11
Tolmas v. Weichertgreen
lactapp · 1993 · cited in 1 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008
1 sentence

2008C.C. art. 3494 for suits on open accounts runs from the date of the last charge, entry, purchase, payment, or other transaction (citing Chrysler Financial Company, L.L.C. v. Gene Ducote Automotive, L.L.C., XXXX-XXXX (La.App. 5th Cir.3/1/05), 900 So.2d 119, 123 (prescription begins to run from the date of the last charge, purchase, payment, or credit entry on the account); Tolmas v. Weichert, 616 So.2d 244, 246 (La.App. 4th Cir.), writ denied, 620 So.2d 878 (La.1993) (the prescriptive period on an open account runs from the last charge or payment on the account); Landreneau v. Duplechin, 595 So

11
BELL FENCE v. Bondgreen
lactapp · 2007 · cited in 1 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008
1 sentence

2008C.C. art. 3494 for suits on open accounts runs from the date of the last charge, entry, purchase, payment, or other transaction (citing Chrysler Financial Company, L.L.C. v. Gene Ducote Automotive, L.L.C., XXXX-XXXX (La.App. 5th Cir.3/1/05), 900 So.2d 119, 123 (prescription begins to run from the date of the last charge, purchase, payment, or credit entry on the account); Tolmas v. Weichert, 616 So.2d 244, 246 (La.App. 4th Cir.), writ denied, 620 So.2d 878 (La.1993) (the prescriptive period on an open account runs from the last charge or payment on the account); Landreneau v. Duplechin, 595 So

11
Gulfcoast Newspapers, Inc. v. Cartgreen
lactapp · 1976 · cited in 1 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008
1 sentence

2008C.C. art. 3494 for suits on open accounts runs from the date of the last charge, entry, purchase, payment, or other transaction (citing Chrysler Financial Company, L.L.C. v. Gene Ducote Automotive, L.L.C., XXXX-XXXX (La.App. 5th Cir.3/1/05), 900 So.2d 119, 123 (prescription begins to run from the date of the last charge, purchase, payment, or credit entry on the account); Tolmas v. Weichert, 616 So.2d 244, 246 (La.App. 4th Cir.), writ denied, 620 So.2d 878 (La.1993) (the prescriptive period on an open account runs from the last charge or payment on the account); Landreneau v. Duplechin, 595 So

11
Ford Marketing Corp. v. First Auto Partsgreen
lactapp · 1975 · cited in 1 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008
1 sentence

2008C.C. art. 3494 for suits on open accounts runs from the date of the last charge, entry, purchase, payment, or other transaction (citing Chrysler Financial Company, L.L.C. v. Gene Ducote Automotive, L.L.C., XXXX-XXXX (La.App. 5th Cir.3/1/05), 900 So.2d 119, 123 (prescription begins to run from the date of the last charge, purchase, payment, or credit entry on the account); Tolmas v. Weichert, 616 So.2d 244, 246 (La.App. 4th Cir.), writ denied, 620 So.2d 878 (La.1993) (the prescriptive period on an open account runs from the last charge or payment on the account); Landreneau v. Duplechin, 595 So

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (6)

CaseCitedYears
State v. Carmouche green
la · 2003
1 sentence

2013State v. Carmouche, 01-0405 (La.5/14/02), 872 So.2d 1020, 1041 .

12013–2013
Nathan v. Carter green
la · 1979
2 sentences

2010This species of contra non valentem is simply a specific example of the general legal principle that a party cannot “take advantage of his own wrongful act.” Nathan, 372 So.2d at 562 .

2010This species of contra non valentem is simply a specific example of the general legal principle that a party cannot "take advantage of his own wrongful act." Nathan, 372 So.2d at 562 .

12010–2010
Landreneau v. Duplechin green
lactapp · 1992
1 sentence

2008C.C. art. 3494 for suits on open accounts runs from the date of the last charge, entry, purchase, payment, or other transaction (citing Chrysler Financial Company, L.L.C. v. Gene Ducote Automotive, L.L.C., XXXX-XXXX (La.App. 5th Cir.3/1/05), 900 So.2d 119, 123 (prescription begins to run from the date of the last charge, purchase, payment, or credit entry on the account); Tolmas v. Weichert, 616 So.2d 244, 246 (La.App. 4th Cir.), writ denied, 620 So.2d 878 (La.1993) (the prescriptive period on an open account runs from the last charge or payment on the account); Landreneau v. Duplechin, 595 So

12008–2008
Butler v. LOUISIANA STATE BD. OF EDUCATION green
la · 1976
1 sentence

2008C.C. art. 3494 for suits on open accounts runs from the date of the last charge, entry, purchase, payment, or other transaction (citing Chrysler Financial Company, L.L.C. v. Gene Ducote Automotive, L.L.C., XXXX-XXXX (La.App. 5th Cir.3/1/05), 900 So.2d 119, 123 (prescription begins to run from the date of the last charge, purchase, payment, or credit entry on the account); Tolmas v. Weichert, 616 So.2d 244, 246 (La.App. 4th Cir.), writ denied, 620 So.2d 878 (La.1993) (the prescriptive period on an open account runs from the last charge or payment on the account); Landreneau v. Duplechin, 595 So

12008–2008
Tolmas v. Weichert neutral
la · 1993
1 sentence

2008C.C. art. 3494 for suits on open accounts runs from the date of the last charge, entry, purchase, payment, or other transaction (citing Chrysler Financial Company, L.L.C. v. Gene Ducote Automotive, L.L.C., XXXX-XXXX (La.App. 5th Cir.3/1/05), 900 So.2d 119, 123 (prescription begins to run from the date of the last charge, purchase, payment, or credit entry on the account); Tolmas v. Weichert, 616 So.2d 244, 246 (La.App. 4th Cir.), writ denied, 620 So.2d 878 (La.1993) (the prescriptive period on an open account runs from the last charge or payment on the account); Landreneau v. Duplechin, 595 So

12008–2008
Whitehall Oil Co. v. Boagni green
la · 1969
1 sentence

1982The rule was stated in a dissenting opinion in Whitehall Oil Company v. Boagni, 217 So.2d 707 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1968) in which Judge Tate, then a member of the Court of Appeal, referred to "the general legal principle that, for the stability of society and of transactions, voluntary payments made with full knowledge of all the facts and not under duress may not subsequently be recovered, even though the amount so paid is not actually owed." (Citations omitted) *315 The Supreme Court granted writs in Whitehall Oil Company v. Boagni, supra, but affirmed the majority holding. 229 So.2d 702 (La.19

11982–1982

Where else courts name it

CA 27 (1900–2024) TX 20 (1980–2024) GA 12 (1922–2024) PA 12 (1919–2026) NY 11 (1853–2018) IL 8 (1968–2012) AL 7 (1916–2013) FL 6 (1967–1997) NC 6 (1972–2018) LA 5 (1982–2015) MI 5 (1955–2022) OH 4 (1951–2023) SC 4 (1989–2011) WA 4 (1998–2025) IA 4 (2013–2023) DC 3 (2001–2008) NJ 3 (1955–2024) AZ 3 (1963–2015) NE 3 (1932–2023) MS 3 (2001–2016) MD 3 (1949–2007) MT 2 (1898–2008) OK 2 (2006–2024) SD 2 (2005–2005) WV 2 (1965–1968) KY 2 (1970–1970) CO 2 (1992–2021) IN 2 (1932–1976) ME 2 (1976–1987) CT 2 (1998–2001) OR 2 (1917–1939) MO 2 (2018–2025) WY 2 (1959–2020) KS 2 (1980–2019)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check