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.
9 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1932–2012 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Bollinger v. Texas Companygreen2 sentences1962All of such decisions culminated in the landmark cases of Melancon v. Texas Company, 1956, 230 La. 593 , 89 So.2d 135 , and Bollinger v. Texas Company, 1957, 232 La. 637 , 95 So.2d 132 . 1962All of such decisions culminated in the landmark cases of Melancon v. Texas Company, 1956, 230 La. 593 , 89 So.2d 135 , and Bollinger v. Texas Company, 1957, 232 La. 637 , 95 So.2d 132 . | 2 | 2 |
Archon v. Union Pacific RRgreen2 sentences1997In addition, the Archon court noted that discovery and admission of the relevant agreements was not barred by the exclusionary rule of 23 U.S.C. § 409 because the court had relied on documents which were not associated with any federal upgrade program. 1 14“Since DOTD’s duty was not grounded in the federal highway-aid program, the admissibility or inadmissibility of documents relating to an upgrade project under that program is irrelevant to our ultimate conclusion that DOTD assumed a duty under certain earlier, independent contractual agreements.” Archon v. Union Pacific R.R., supra, at 997. 1997The duty to furnish and install an active warning sign or device is obviously different and distinct from the duty to maintain such devices or signs after their installation. 657 So.2d at 992 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Rosenthral v. Baer
neutral
2 sentences1962LSA-Civil Code, Article 1932; Rosenthral v. Baer, 18 La.Ann. 573 ; Noel Estate Inc. v. Louisiana Oil Ref. 1961LSA-Civil Code, Article 1932; Rosenthral v. Baer, 18 La.Ann. 573 ; Noel Estate, Inc. v. Louisiana Oil Ref. | 4 | 1956–1962 |
Melancon v. Texas Company
green
2 sentences1962All of such decisions culminated in the landmark cases of Melancon v. Texas Company, 1956, 230 La. 593 , 89 So.2d 135 , and Bollinger v. Texas Company, 1957, 232 La. 637 , 95 So.2d 132 . 1962All of such decisions culminated in the landmark cases of Melancon v. Texas Company, 1956, 230 La. 593 , 89 So.2d 135 , and Bollinger v. Texas Company, 1957, 232 La. 637 , 95 So.2d 132 . | 2 | 1961–1962 |
L & a CONTRACTING v. Ram Indus. Coatings, Inc.
green
1 sentence2012Coatings, Inc., 99-0354, p. 27 (La.App. 1st Cir.6/23/00), 762 So.2d 1223, 1239 , writ denied, 00-2232 (La.11/13/00), 775 So.2d 438 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
L & a CONTRACTING CO. INC. v. Ram Industrial Coatings, Inc.
neutral
1 sentence2012Coatings, Inc., 99-0354, p. 27 (La.App. 1st Cir.6/23/00), 762 So.2d 1223, 1239 , writ denied, 00-2232 (La.11/13/00), 775 So.2d 438 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Lee v. Missouri Pacific RR Co.
green
1 sentence1998In view of the rationale of Lee, supra, we reject the State's argument that this crossing did not present an unreasonable risk of harm or that Moore's failure to yield and stop made him totally at fault in the accident. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Samuelson v. Bosk
neutral
1 sentence1970The defendant, Chevalier, contends that the unauthorized return of the deposit by Ramsey and its acceptance by Pierre constituted an active violation of the contract and that both Ramsey and Pierre have forfeited any right they might have had thereunder and are liable to him for dam ages, citing LSA-C.C. art. 1932, which provides as follows: “When there is an active violation of the contract, damages are due from the moment the act of contravention has been done, and the creditor is under no obligation to put the debtor in default, in order to entitle him to his action.” He also relies upon th | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Landry & Passman Realty, Inc. v. Keen
neutral
1 sentence1970The defendant, Chevalier, contends that the unauthorized return of the deposit by Ramsey and its acceptance by Pierre constituted an active violation of the contract and that both Ramsey and Pierre have forfeited any right they might have had thereunder and are liable to him for dam ages, citing LSA-C.C. art. 1932, which provides as follows: “When there is an active violation of the contract, damages are due from the moment the act of contravention has been done, and the creditor is under no obligation to put the debtor in default, in order to entitle him to his action.” He also relies upon th | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Boisseau v. Vallon & Jordano, Inc.
green
2 sentences1970The defendant, Chevalier, contends that the unauthorized return of the deposit by Ramsey and its acceptance by Pierre constituted an active violation of the contract and that both Ramsey and Pierre have forfeited any right they might have had thereunder and are liable to him for dam ages, citing LSA-C.C. art. 1932, which provides as follows: “When there is an active violation of the contract, damages are due from the moment the act of contravention has been done, and the creditor is under no obligation to put the debtor in default, in order to entitle him to his action.” He also relies upon th 1970The defendant, Chevalier, contends that the unauthorized return of the deposit by Ramsey and its acceptance by Pierre constituted an active violation of the contract and that both Ramsey and Pierre have forfeited any right they might have had thereunder and are liable to him for dam ages, citing LSA-C.C. art. 1932, which provides as follows: “When there is an active violation of the contract, damages are due from the moment the act of contravention has been done, and the creditor is under no obligation to put the debtor in default, in order to entitle him to his action.” He also relies upon th | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Noel Estate, Inc. v. Louisiana Oil Refining Corp.
green
2 sentences1957LSA-Civil Code, Article 1932; Rosenthral v. Baer, 18 La.Ann. 573 ; Noel Estate, Inc., v. Louisiana Oil Refining Corp., 188 La. 45 , 175 So. 744 . 1957LSA-Civil Code, Article 1932; Rosenthral v. Baer, 18 La.Ann. 573 ; Noel Estate, Inc., v. Louisiana Oil Refining Corp., 188 La. 45 , 175 So. 744 . | 1 | 1957–1957 |
Tyson v. Surf Oil Co.
green
2 sentences1956(Paragraph 7; italics supplied.) [9] Tyson v. Surf Oil Co., 195 La. 248 , 196 So. 336 ; Brown v. Sugar Creek Syndicate, 195 La. 865 , 197 So. 583 ; Risinger v. Arkansas-Louisiana Gas Company, 198 La. 101 , 3 So.2d 289 ; and Rudnick v. Union Producing Co., 209 La. 943 , 25 So.2d 906 . [10] "When there is an active violation of the contract, * * * the creditor is under no obligation to put the debtor in default, * * *." [11] In the case of Hunt Trust v. Crowell Land & Mineral Corporation, 210 La. 945 , 28 So.2d 669, 673 , this Court quoted approvingly from Ruling Case Law: "Generally speaking, t 1956(Paragraph 7; italics supplied.) [9] Tyson v. Surf Oil Co., 195 La. 248 , 196 So. 336 ; Brown v. Sugar Creek Syndicate, 195 La. 865 , 197 So. 583 ; Risinger v. Arkansas-Louisiana Gas Company, 198 La. 101 , 3 So.2d 289 ; and Rudnick v. Union Producing Co., 209 La. 943 , 25 So.2d 906 . [10] "When there is an active violation of the contract, * * * the creditor is under no obligation to put the debtor in default, * * *." [11] In the case of Hunt Trust v. Crowell Land & Mineral Corporation, 210 La. 945 , 28 So.2d 669, 673 , this Court quoted approvingly from Ruling Case Law: "Generally speaking, t | 1 | 1956–1956 |
Rudnick v. Union Producing Co.
green
2 sentences1956(Paragraph 7; italics supplied.) [9] Tyson v. Surf Oil Co., 195 La. 248 , 196 So. 336 ; Brown v. Sugar Creek Syndicate, 195 La. 865 , 197 So. 583 ; Risinger v. Arkansas-Louisiana Gas Company, 198 La. 101 , 3 So.2d 289 ; and Rudnick v. Union Producing Co., 209 La. 943 , 25 So.2d 906 . [10] "When there is an active violation of the contract, * * * the creditor is under no obligation to put the debtor in default, * * *." [11] In the case of Hunt Trust v. Crowell Land & Mineral Corporation, 210 La. 945 , 28 So.2d 669, 673 , this Court quoted approvingly from Ruling Case Law: "Generally speaking, t 1956(Paragraph 7; italics supplied.) [9] Tyson v. Surf Oil Co., 195 La. 248 , 196 So. 336 ; Brown v. Sugar Creek Syndicate, 195 La. 865 , 197 So. 583 ; Risinger v. Arkansas-Louisiana Gas Company, 198 La. 101 , 3 So.2d 289 ; and Rudnick v. Union Producing Co., 209 La. 943 , 25 So.2d 906 . [10] "When there is an active violation of the contract, * * * the creditor is under no obligation to put the debtor in default, * * *." [11] In the case of Hunt Trust v. Crowell Land & Mineral Corporation, 210 La. 945 , 28 So.2d 669, 673 , this Court quoted approvingly from Ruling Case Law: "Generally speaking, t | 1 | 1956–1956 |
Hunt Trust v. Crowell Land Mineral Corporation
green
2 sentences1956(Paragraph 7; italics supplied.) [9] Tyson v. Surf Oil Co., 195 La. 248 , 196 So. 336 ; Brown v. Sugar Creek Syndicate, 195 La. 865 , 197 So. 583 ; Risinger v. Arkansas-Louisiana Gas Company, 198 La. 101 , 3 So.2d 289 ; and Rudnick v. Union Producing Co., 209 La. 943 , 25 So.2d 906 . [10] "When there is an active violation of the contract, * * * the creditor is under no obligation to put the debtor in default, * * *." [11] In the case of Hunt Trust v. Crowell Land & Mineral Corporation, 210 La. 945 , 28 So.2d 669, 673 , this Court quoted approvingly from Ruling Case Law: "Generally speaking, t 1956(Paragraph 7; italics supplied.) [9] Tyson v. Surf Oil Co., 195 La. 248 , 196 So. 336 ; Brown v. Sugar Creek Syndicate, 195 La. 865 , 197 So. 583 ; Risinger v. Arkansas-Louisiana Gas Company, 198 La. 101 , 3 So.2d 289 ; and Rudnick v. Union Producing Co., 209 La. 943 , 25 So.2d 906 . [10] "When there is an active violation of the contract, * * * the creditor is under no obligation to put the debtor in default, * * *." [11] In the case of Hunt Trust v. Crowell Land & Mineral Corporation, 210 La. 945 , 28 So.2d 669, 673 , this Court quoted approvingly from Ruling Case Law: "Generally speaking, t | 1 | 1956–1956 |
Brown v. Sugar Creek Syndicate
green
2 sentences1956(Paragraph 7; italics supplied.) [9] Tyson v. Surf Oil Co., 195 La. 248 , 196 So. 336 ; Brown v. Sugar Creek Syndicate, 195 La. 865 , 197 So. 583 ; Risinger v. Arkansas-Louisiana Gas Company, 198 La. 101 , 3 So.2d 289 ; and Rudnick v. Union Producing Co., 209 La. 943 , 25 So.2d 906 . [10] "When there is an active violation of the contract, * * * the creditor is under no obligation to put the debtor in default, * * *." [11] In the case of Hunt Trust v. Crowell Land & Mineral Corporation, 210 La. 945 , 28 So.2d 669, 673 , this Court quoted approvingly from Ruling Case Law: "Generally speaking, t 1956(Paragraph 7; italics supplied.) [9] Tyson v. Surf Oil Co., 195 La. 248 , 196 So. 336 ; Brown v. Sugar Creek Syndicate, 195 La. 865 , 197 So. 583 ; Risinger v. Arkansas-Louisiana Gas Company, 198 La. 101 , 3 So.2d 289 ; and Rudnick v. Union Producing Co., 209 La. 943 , 25 So.2d 906 . [10] "When there is an active violation of the contract, * * * the creditor is under no obligation to put the debtor in default, * * *." [11] In the case of Hunt Trust v. Crowell Land & Mineral Corporation, 210 La. 945 , 28 So.2d 669, 673 , this Court quoted approvingly from Ruling Case Law: "Generally speaking, t | 1 | 1956–1956 |
Risinger v. Arkansas-Louisiana Gas Co.
green
2 sentences1956(Paragraph 7; italics supplied.) [9] Tyson v. Surf Oil Co., 195 La. 248 , 196 So. 336 ; Brown v. Sugar Creek Syndicate, 195 La. 865 , 197 So. 583 ; Risinger v. Arkansas-Louisiana Gas Company, 198 La. 101 , 3 So.2d 289 ; and Rudnick v. Union Producing Co., 209 La. 943 , 25 So.2d 906 . [10] "When there is an active violation of the contract, * * * the creditor is under no obligation to put the debtor in default, * * *." [11] In the case of Hunt Trust v. Crowell Land & Mineral Corporation, 210 La. 945 , 28 So.2d 669, 673 , this Court quoted approvingly from Ruling Case Law: "Generally speaking, t 1956(Paragraph 7; italics supplied.) [9] Tyson v. Surf Oil Co., 195 La. 248 , 196 So. 336 ; Brown v. Sugar Creek Syndicate, 195 La. 865 , 197 So. 583 ; Risinger v. Arkansas-Louisiana Gas Company, 198 La. 101 , 3 So.2d 289 ; and Rudnick v. Union Producing Co., 209 La. 943 , 25 So.2d 906 . [10] "When there is an active violation of the contract, * * * the creditor is under no obligation to put the debtor in default, * * *." [11] In the case of Hunt Trust v. Crowell Land & Mineral Corporation, 210 La. 945 , 28 So.2d 669, 673 , this Court quoted approvingly from Ruling Case Law: "Generally speaking, t | 1 | 1956–1956 |
Henderson v. Leona Rice Milling Co.
neutral
2 sentences1932Paraphrasing what Laurent says, speaking of an action ‘recursoire’ (volume 24, § 303), the demand, being born of the action in warranty for the vices of the thing sold, proceeding from the same cause, and subjected for its justification to the same rules, is necessarily controlled by the same conditions in its exercise, and cannot claim a greater limit for its duration than it docs.” On this issue, the plaintiff cites Henderson v. Leona Rice Milling Co., 160 La. 597 , 107 So. 459, 461 , as an action for damages for ¡breach of a contract of sale and an active violation of the covenant of warran 1932Paraphrasing what Laurent says, speaking of an action ‘recursoire’ (volume 24, § 303), the demand, being born of the action in warranty for the vices of the thing sold, proceeding from the same cause, and subjected for its justification to the same rules, is necessarily controlled by the same conditions in its exercise, and cannot claim a greater limit for its duration than it docs.” On this issue, the plaintiff cites Henderson v. Leona Rice Milling Co., 160 La. 597 , 107 So. 459, 461 , as an action for damages for ¡breach of a contract of sale and an active violation of the covenant of warran | 1 | 1932–1932 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.