Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Hines v. Smith

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Decided August 12, 2009No. 44,285-CAPublished

1Concurrence

*1244MOORE, J,

concurs.

U respectfully concur in reversing the exception of res judicata. I recognize that compromises are favored in our law, and a compromise is not invalid merely because it is broad. Dumas v. Angus Chem. Co., 31,969 (La.App. 2 Cir. 8/20/99), 742 So.2d 655, writ not cons., 99-2750 (La.11/5/99), 751 So.2d 237. This court has enforced compromises in favor of third-person beneficiaries who were not parties to the compromise, if the instrument clearly releases all parties and contains no reservation of rights. Dumas v. Angus Chem. Co., supra; Hudson v. Progressive Security Ins. Co.,…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Brown v. Drillers, Inc.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1994
  2. Dumas v. Angus Chemical Co.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1999
  3. Hudson v. Progressive Security Insurance Co.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 2008
  4. Alford v. Al Copeland Investments, Inc.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 2001
  5. Roberson v. DJD, INC.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 2006

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API