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.
6 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1986–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
Snowton v. Snowtongreen1 sentence2010See Snowton, | .,2009-0600, p. 3, 22 So.3d at 1113 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hogg v. Chevron USA, Inc.
green
1 sentence2021Hogg v. Chevron USA, Inc., 09-2632 (La. 7/6/10), 45 So.3d 991, 998 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Bruno v. Harbert Intern. Inc.
green
1 sentence2016Louisiana Revised Statute 23:1021(1) states: “ ‘Accident’ means an unexpected or unforeseen actual, identifiable, precipitous event happening suddenly or violently, with or without human fault, and directly producing at the time objective findings of an injury which is more than simply a gradual deterioration or progressive degeneration.” In Bruno, 593 So.2d at 361 , the supreme court stated: A worker’s testimony alone may be sufficient to discharge this burden of proof, provided two elements are satisfied: (1) no other evidence discredits or casts serious doubt upon the worker’s version of th | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Ford v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc.
green
1 sentence2010“And there is no objective evidence supporting a one-mile radius in the first place.” 12 The plaintiffs contend that this court and the Louisiana Supreme Court have remanded class certifications for re-definition, citing the Supreme Court’s suggestion in Ford v. Murphy Oil U.S.A., Inc., 96-2913 (La.9/9/97), 703 So.2d 542 , and this court’s certification of a re-defined class in Andry v. Murphy Oil, U.S.A., Inc., 97-0793 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/1/98) , 710 So.2d 1126 , one of Ford’s progeny. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Andry v. Murphy Oil, USA, Inc.
green
1 sentence2010“And there is no objective evidence supporting a one-mile radius in the first place.” 12 The plaintiffs contend that this court and the Louisiana Supreme Court have remanded class certifications for re-definition, citing the Supreme Court’s suggestion in Ford v. Murphy Oil U.S.A., Inc., 96-2913 (La.9/9/97), 703 So.2d 542 , and this court’s certification of a re-defined class in Andry v. Murphy Oil, U.S.A., Inc., 97-0793 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/1/98) , 710 So.2d 1126 , one of Ford’s progeny. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Flores
green
2 sentences1992State v. Flores, 315 So.2d 772 (La.1975). 1992State v. Flores, 315 So.2d 772 (La.1975). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Neff v. Ford Motor Credit Co.
green
1 sentence1986(Emphasis supplied.) In Neff v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 347 So.2d 1228 (La.App. 1st Cir.1977), this Court rejected Ford's contention that the trial court erred when it "failed to consider Ford's claim raised in its supplemental answer that it is entitled to a `set-off' for the remaining unpaid balance due on the note... at the time the executory proceedings were instituted ..." Judge Cole (now Justice Cole), for the Court, reasoned, in part, as follows: ... | 1 | 1986–1986 |
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.