Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
14 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1965–2022 1 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
New Hampshire v. Mainegreen2 sentences2022Newtek contends that if the LDJA is available to the Bakers, it must be considered waived under the doctrine of judicial estoppel because the Bakers had the opportunity and failed to raise their objection in the commercial real estate foreclosure proceeding or the BSI bankruptcy case. “[J]udicial estoppel [is] an equitable doctrine designed to protect the integrity of the judicial process by prohibiting parties from deliberately changing positions according to the exigencies of the moment.” Webb v. Webb, 2018-0320 (La. 12/5/18), 263 So.3d 321, 328 (quoting Miller v. Conagra, Inc., 2008-0021 (L 2022Newtek contends that if the LDJA is available to the Bakers, it must be considered waived under the doctrine of judicial estoppel because the Bakers had the opportunity and failed to raise their objection in the commercial real estate foreclosure proceeding or the BSI bankruptcy case. “[J]udicial estoppel [is] an equitable doctrine designed to protect the integrity of the judicial process by prohibiting parties from deliberately changing positions according to the exigencies of the moment.” Webb v. Webb, 2018-0320 (La. 12/5/18), 263 So.3d 321, 328 (quoting Miller v. Conagra, Inc., 2008-0021 (L | 1 | 2 |
Elizabeth Webb v. Daniel Andrew Webbgreen1 sentence2022Newtek contends that if the LDJA is available to the Bakers, it must be considered waived under the doctrine of judicial estoppel because the Bakers had the opportunity and failed to raise their objection in the commercial real estate foreclosure proceeding or the BSI bankruptcy case. “[J]udicial estoppel [is] an equitable doctrine designed to protect the integrity of the judicial process by prohibiting parties from deliberately changing positions according to the exigencies of the moment.” Webb v. Webb, 2018-0320 (La. 12/5/18), 263 So.3d 321, 328 (quoting Miller v. Conagra, Inc., 2008-0021 (L | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. Globe Tool & Engineering Co.green1 sentence1978In Brown v. Globe Tool & Engineering Co., 337 So.2d 894, 898 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1976), we observed: “The thrust of the California Co. [California Co. v. Price, 234 La. 338 , 99 So.2d 743 (1957)] decision, considered with earlier and later decisions on the subject, is that when the triple identities are present, C.C. art. 2286 (contained in the section on presumptions of the chapter on proof of obligations) controls, but that when the triple identities are not present, a second action may still be barred by estoppel. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ugulano v. Allstate Ins. Co.
neutral
2 sentences2018Co. , 414 So. 2d 763 , 765 (La. 1982) (citing Do rn ak v. Lafayette General Hospital , 399 So. 2d 168 (La. 1981) ; Ugulano v. Allstate Insurance Company , 367 So. 2d 6 (La. 1978) ). 1982Dornak v. Lafayette General Hospital, 399 So.2d 168 (La.1981); Ugulano v. Allstate Insurance Company, 367 So.2d 6 (La.1978). | 3 | 1981–2018 |
Dornak v. Lafayette General Hospital
green
2 sentences2018Co. , 414 So. 2d 763 , 765 (La. 1982) (citing Do rn ak v. Lafayette General Hospital , 399 So. 2d 168 (La. 1981) ; Ugulano v. Allstate Insurance Company , 367 So. 2d 6 (La. 1978) ). 1986Dornak v. Lafayette General Hospital, 399 So.2d 168 (La.1981). | 3 | 1982–2018 |
California Company v. Price
green
2 sentences1974Counsel for Hudson Engineering and its insurers assert, correctly in my opinion, that in California Company v. Price, 234 La. 338 , 99 So.2d 743 (1957); McKnight v. State, 68 So.2d 652 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1953), writ denied; and Williams v. Marionneaux, 240 La. 713 , 124 So.2d 919 (1960), Louisiana has embraced the doctrine of judicial estoppel. 1974Counsel for Hudson Engineering and its insurers assert, correctly in my opinion, that in California Company v. Price, 234 La. 338 , 99 So.2d 743 (1957); McKnight v. State, 68 So.2d 652 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1953), writ denied; and Williams v. Marionneaux, 240 La. 713 , 124 So.2d 919 (1960), Louisiana has embraced the doctrine of judicial estoppel. | 3 | 1965–1978 |
Miller v. Conagra, Inc.
green
2 sentences2022Newtek contends that if the LDJA is available to the Bakers, it must be considered waived under the doctrine of judicial estoppel because the Bakers had the opportunity and failed to raise their objection in the commercial real estate foreclosure proceeding or the BSI bankruptcy case. “[J]udicial estoppel [is] an equitable doctrine designed to protect the integrity of the judicial process by prohibiting parties from deliberately changing positions according to the exigencies of the moment.” Webb v. Webb, 2018-0320 (La. 12/5/18), 263 So.3d 321, 328 (quoting Miller v. Conagra, Inc., 2008-0021 (L 2018The doctrine of judicial estoppel "is designed to protect the integrity of the judicial process by prohibiting parties from deliberately changing positions according to the exigencies of the moment." Miller , 08-0021 at 9, 991 So.2d at 452 (citing New Hampshire , 532 U.S. at 749 -50 , 121 S.Ct. 1808 ). | 2 | 2018–2022 |
McKnight v. State
green
2 sentences1975Barnett v. Develle, supra; Muntz v. Algiers & Gretna Street Railway Company, supra; McKnight v. State, supra; Williams v. Marionneaux, supra; Cauefield v. Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York, supra. Except in these instances of vicarious or derivative liability, the doctrine of judicial estoppel has only been applied in situations where the same parties were before the court in both proceedings. 1974Counsel for Hudson Engineering and its insurers assert, correctly in my opinion, that in California Company v. Price, 234 La. 338 , 99 So.2d 743 (1957); McKnight v. State, 68 So.2d 652 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1953), writ denied; and Williams v. Marionneaux, 240 La. 713 , 124 So.2d 919 (1960), Louisiana has embraced the doctrine of judicial estoppel. | 2 | 1974–1975 |
Superior Crewboats, Inc. v. Primary P & I Underwriters
green
1 sentence2018Notwithstanding the case of Miller v. Conagra, Inc. , 08-0021 (La. 9/8/08), 991 So.2d 445 , (citing In re: Superior Crewboats, Inc. , 374 F.3d 330 , 335 (5th Cir. 2004) ), a bankruptcy proceeding (which is not the case herein), our jurisprudence has historically found that "the common law doctrine of judicial estoppel does not apply in Louisiana." Doyle v. State Farm (Mut.) Ins. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Doyle v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co.
green
2 sentences2018Co. , 414 So. 2d 763 , 765 (La. 1982) (citing Do rn ak v. Lafayette General Hospital , 399 So. 2d 168 (La. 1981) ; Ugulano v. Allstate Insurance Company , 367 So. 2d 6 (La. 1978) ). 2018Co. , 414 So.2d 763 , 765 (La. 1982). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Helen Allen v. C & H Distributors, L.L.C.
green
1 sentence2017Allen v. C & H Distributors, L.L.C. , 813 F.3d 566 (5th Cir. 2015). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Fulmer v. Fulmer
green
1 sentence1976We think the answer to that question is yes, because of the wording of Article 160 and the doctrine of judicial estoppel, as set out in Fulmer (supra). | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Stevens v. New Orleans and Northeastern Railroad Co.
green
1 sentence1976Co., 341 F.Supp. 497 (E.D.La.1972)] is recognized in Louisiana. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Rouseo v. Atlas Finance Co.
neutral
1 sentence1975Although the application of the doctrine of judicial estoppel in Louisiana has been criticized, see McMahon, The Work of the Louisiana Supreme Court, 1957-58 Term, 19 La.L.Rev. 294, 390 (1959), questioned, see Tate, The Work of the Louisiana Appellate Courts, 1967-68 Term, 29 La.L.Rev. 278, 279 (1969), and soundly rejected by one Court of Appeal, Shell Oil Company v. Texas Gas Transmission Corporation, 176 So.2d 692 (La.App., 4th Cir. 1964); Rouseo v. Atlas Finance Company, 167 So.2d 495 (La.App., 4th Cir. 1964); Bordelon v. Landry, 278 So.2d 173 (La.App., 4th Cir. 1973), it continues to find | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Olsen Engineering Corp. v. Hudson Engineering Corp.
green
1 sentence1975Olsen Engineering Corporation v. Hudson Engineering Corporation, 289 So.2d 346 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1973). | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Barnett v. Develle
green
1 sentence1975Barnett v. Develle, supra; Muntz v. Algiers & Gretna Street Railway Company, supra; McKnight v. State, supra; Williams v. Marionneaux, supra; Cauefield v. Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York, supra. Except in these instances of vicarious or derivative liability, the doctrine of judicial estoppel has only been applied in situations where the same parties were before the court in both proceedings. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Shell Oil Company v. Texas Gas Transmission Corp.
green
1 sentence1975Although the application of the doctrine of judicial estoppel in Louisiana has been criticized, see McMahon, The Work of the Louisiana Supreme Court, 1957-58 Term, 19 La.L.Rev. 294, 390 (1959), questioned, see Tate, The Work of the Louisiana Appellate Courts, 1967-68 Term, 29 La.L.Rev. 278, 279 (1969), and soundly rejected by one Court of Appeal, Shell Oil Company v. Texas Gas Transmission Corporation, 176 So.2d 692 (La.App., 4th Cir. 1964); Rouseo v. Atlas Finance Company, 167 So.2d 495 (La.App., 4th Cir. 1964); Bordelon v. Landry, 278 So.2d 173 (La.App., 4th Cir. 1973), it continues to find | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Bordelon v. Landry
green
1 sentence1975Although the application of the doctrine of judicial estoppel in Louisiana has been criticized, see McMahon, The Work of the Louisiana Supreme Court, 1957-58 Term, 19 La.L.Rev. 294, 390 (1959), questioned, see Tate, The Work of the Louisiana Appellate Courts, 1967-68 Term, 29 La.L.Rev. 278, 279 (1969), and soundly rejected by one Court of Appeal, Shell Oil Company v. Texas Gas Transmission Corporation, 176 So.2d 692 (La.App., 4th Cir. 1964); Rouseo v. Atlas Finance Company, 167 So.2d 495 (La.App., 4th Cir. 1964); Bordelon v. Landry, 278 So.2d 173 (La.App., 4th Cir. 1973), it continues to find | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Sargent Cauefield and Jim Lucas v. The Fidelity and Casualty Company of New York
green
1 sentence1975Barnett v. Develle, supra; Muntz v. Algiers & Gretna Street Railway Company, supra; McKnight v. State, supra; Williams v. Marionneaux, supra; Cauefield v. Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York, supra. Except in these instances of vicarious or derivative liability, the doctrine of judicial estoppel has only been applied in situations where the same parties were before the court in both proceedings. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Williams v. Marionneaux
green
2 sentences1974Counsel for Hudson Engineering and its insurers assert, correctly in my opinion, that in California Company v. Price, 234 La. 338 , 99 So.2d 743 (1957); McKnight v. State, 68 So.2d 652 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1953), writ denied; and Williams v. Marionneaux, 240 La. 713 , 124 So.2d 919 (1960), Louisiana has embraced the doctrine of judicial estoppel. 1974Counsel for Hudson Engineering and its insurers assert, correctly in my opinion, that in California Company v. Price, 234 La. 338 , 99 So.2d 743 (1957); McKnight v. State, 68 So.2d 652 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1953), writ denied; and Williams v. Marionneaux, 240 La. 713 , 124 So.2d 919 (1960), Louisiana has embraced the doctrine of judicial estoppel. | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Broussard v. Broussard
green
1 sentence1974Recently in Broussard v. Broussard, 275 So.2d 410 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1973), the Court could not find proper facts for a strict application of res judicata, but found that the question there presented had been determined in a prior suit even though the demands were not the same. | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Succession of Reynolds
green
2 sentences1967This doctrine has been urged and explained by Justice McCaleb in Quarles v. Lewis, 226 La. 76 , 75 So.2d 14 , and Succession of Reynolds, 231 La. 410 , 91 So.2d 584 . 1967This doctrine has been urged and explained by Justice McCaleb in Quarles v. Lewis, 226 La. 76 , 75 So.2d 14 , and Succession of Reynolds, 231 La. 410 , 91 So.2d 584 . | 1 | 1967–1967 |
Quarles v. Lewis
green
2 sentences1967This doctrine has been urged and explained by Justice McCaleb in Quarles v. Lewis, 226 La. 76 , 75 So.2d 14 , and Succession of Reynolds, 231 La. 410 , 91 So.2d 584 . 1967This doctrine has been urged and explained by Justice McCaleb in Quarles v. Lewis, 226 La. 76 , 75 So.2d 14 , and Succession of Reynolds, 231 La. 410 , 91 So.2d 584 . | 1 | 1967–1967 |
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.