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 1968–2026 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Wrm v. Hcvgreen1 sentence2026See Id. | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. City of New Orleansgreen1 sentence2024See generally Smith, 13-0802 at p. 10, 131 So. 3d at 518 (stating that with regard to the viability of a claim, a certification hearing is not the appropriate venue to determine the merits of the case). | 1 | 1 |
Pure Oil Company v. Skinnergreen1 sentence1984See Weaver v. Hailey, 416 So.2d 311 (La.App.3d Cir.1982), confirming the viability of the rule of Pure Oil Company v. Skinner, 294 So.2d 797 (La.1974), after the adoption of LSA-C.C. | 1 | 1 |
Weaver v. Haileygreen1 sentence1984See Weaver v. Hailey, 416 So.2d 311 (La.App.3d Cir.1982), confirming the viability of the rule of Pure Oil Company v. Skinner, 294 So.2d 797 (La.1974), after the adoption of LSA-C.C. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Thinkstream, Inc. v. Rubin
green
1 sentence2014As the exception of no cause of action presents a question of law, our task is “simply a review of whether the trial court was legally correct or legally incorrect.” See Thinkstream, Inc. v. Rubin, 06-1595, p. 8 (La.App. 1 Cir. 9/26/07), 971 So.2d 1092, 1100 , writ denied, 07-2113 (La.1/7/08), 973 So.2d 730 . [ (As stated previously, this court considered the viability of a claim for negligent spoliation of evidence in Clavier v. Our Lady of the Lake Hosp. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Kinney v. Bourgeois
green
1 sentence2014As the exception of no cause of action presents a question of law, our task is “simply a review of whether the trial court was legally correct or legally incorrect.” See Thinkstream, Inc. v. Rubin, 06-1595, p. 8 (La.App. 1 Cir. 9/26/07), 971 So.2d 1092, 1100 , writ denied, 07-2113 (La.1/7/08), 973 So.2d 730 . [ (As stated previously, this court considered the viability of a claim for negligent spoliation of evidence in Clavier v. Our Lady of the Lake Hosp. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Clavier v. Our Lady of the Lake Hospital, Inc.
green
1 sentence2014Inc., 12-0560 (La.App. 1 Cir. 12/28/12) , 112 So.3d 881 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
United States v. Bermea
green
1 sentence2011Id. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Eusea v. Blanchard
neutral
1 sentence2007Id. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Sims v. Wackenhut Health Services, Inc.
green
1 sentence2006The Revere case had nothing to do with the conditions of an inmate’s confinement and his statutory Request for Administrative Remedy prior to filing a pleading in district court. 117Inmate Coleman also cites Sims v. Wackenhut Health Services, Inc., 97-1147 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2/20/98) , 708 So.2d 1140 , writ denied, 98-0747 (La.5/01/98), 718 So.2d 417 , for the proposition that his letters did not have to be in proper form. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Sims v. Wackenhut Health Services, Inc.
green
1 sentence2006The Revere case had nothing to do with the conditions of an inmate’s confinement and his statutory Request for Administrative Remedy prior to filing a pleading in district court. 117Inmate Coleman also cites Sims v. Wackenhut Health Services, Inc., 97-1147 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2/20/98) , 708 So.2d 1140 , writ denied, 98-0747 (La.5/01/98), 718 So.2d 417 , for the proposition that his letters did not have to be in proper form. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Watson v. Cook
green
1 sentence1983NOTES [1] For an extensive review of the rules applicable to summary judgment see Succession of Dubuisson v. Cook, 427 So.2d 1312 (La.App. 2d Cir.1983). [2] However, we observe that there is considerable question as to the viability of this defense. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Bank of Commerce & Trust Co. v. Union Indemnity Co.
neutral
2 sentences1968Bank of Commerce and Trust Co. v. Union Indemnity Co., 174 La. 1014 , 142 So. 156 ; Curran & Treadaway v. American Bonding Co., 193 La. 763 , 192 So. 335 .” Being satisfied with the legality and the viability of the clause in question, we must disagree with the trial court that it is ambiguous or misleading in any respect, and we must reject the contention of the attorney for plaintiff to the effect that the language of this clause must be construed to apply only to fraudulent or dishonest acts committed by the employee after the issuance of the bond. 1968Bank of Commerce and Trust Co. v. Union Indemnity Co., 174 La. 1014 , 142 So. 156 ; Curran & Treadaway v. American Bonding Co., 193 La. 763 , 192 So. 335 .” Being satisfied with the legality and the viability of the clause in question, we must disagree with the trial court that it is ambiguous or misleading in any respect, and we must reject the contention of the attorney for plaintiff to the effect that the language of this clause must be construed to apply only to fraudulent or dishonest acts committed by the employee after the issuance of the bond. | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Curran & Treadaway, Inc. v. American Bonding Co.
green
2 sentences1968Bank of Commerce and Trust Co. v. Union Indemnity Co., 174 La. 1014 , 142 So. 156 ; Curran & Treadaway v. American Bonding Co., 193 La. 763 , 192 So. 335 .” Being satisfied with the legality and the viability of the clause in question, we must disagree with the trial court that it is ambiguous or misleading in any respect, and we must reject the contention of the attorney for plaintiff to the effect that the language of this clause must be construed to apply only to fraudulent or dishonest acts committed by the employee after the issuance of the bond. 1968Bank of Commerce and Trust Co. v. Union Indemnity Co., 174 La. 1014 , 142 So. 156 ; Curran & Treadaway v. American Bonding Co., 193 La. 763 , 192 So. 335 .” Being satisfied with the legality and the viability of the clause in question, we must disagree with the trial court that it is ambiguous or misleading in any respect, and we must reject the contention of the attorney for plaintiff to the effect that the language of this clause must be construed to apply only to fraudulent or dishonest acts committed by the employee after the issuance of the bond. | 1 | 1968–1968 |
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.