Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Willis v. Medders, 775 So. 2d 1049.

258 citing documents.

All Crane Rental of Georgia, Inc. v. Vincent 47 So. 3d 1024 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Willis v. Medders, 2000-2507, p. 2 (La.12/8/00), .
Richardson v. Geico Indemnity Co. 48 So. 3d 307 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Willis v. Medders, 00-2507 (La.12/8/00), .
Janney v. Pearce 40 So. 3d 285 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Willis v. Medders, 2000-2507, p. 2 (La.12/8/00), .
Jeanmarie v. Peoples 34 So. 3d 945 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Willis v. Medders, 00-2507, p. 1 (La.12/8/00), , citing Independent Fire Ins.
Berard v. L-3 Communications Vertex Aerospace, LLC 35 So. 3d 334 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Willis v. Medders, 00-2507, p. 2 (La.12/8/00), .
Chermaine P. Dibartolo, Et Vir. v. Stage One - the Hair School, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
Dibartolo v. Stage One-The Hair Schools 23 So. 3d 1038 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Willis v. Medders, 00-2507, p. 2 (La.12/8/00), .
Morales v. BOOMTOWN, LLC OF DELAWARE 27 So. 3d 914 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2009
Willis v. Medders, 00-2507 (La.12/8/00), .
Roach Plumbing & Heating, Inc. v. Fairfield Towers, LLC 17 So. 3d 493 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
Willis v. Medders, 00-2507 (La.12/8/00), .
WEISHAR v. Kim 15 So. 3d 384 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
PINEGAR v. Harris 20 So. 3d 1081 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Willis v. Medders, 00-2507, p. 2 (La.12/8/00), .
Hendrickson v. Guillory 15 So. 3d 256 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Willis v. Medders, 00-2507, p. 2 (La.12/8/00), .
Cindi Babineaux v. Pnk (Lake Charles), LLC, L'Auberge Du Lac Hotel & Casino La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
McAskill v. American Marine Holding Co. 9 So. 3d 264 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Willis v. Medders, 00-2507, p. 2 (La.12/08/00), ; Independent Fire Insurance Co. v. Sunbeam Corp., 99-2181, 99-2257, p. 17 (La.2/29/00), ; Berthelot v. Avondale Industries, Inc., 2002-1779, (La.App.
Babineaux v. PNK (Lake Charles), L.L.C. 6 So. 3d 939 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
art. 966(A)(2), “factual inferences reasonably drawn from the evidence must be construed in favor of the party opposing the motion, and all doubt must be resolved in the opponent’s favor.” Willis v. Medders, 00-2507, p. 2 (La.12/8/00), ; Indep.
Dunaway v. Louisiana Wildlife & Fisheries Commission 6 So. 3d 228 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Factual inferences reasonably drawn from the evidence must be construed in favor of the party opposing the motion, and all doubt must be resolved in the opponents favor, Willis v. Medders, 00-2507, p. 2 (La.12/8/00), .
Bradford v. Coody 6 So. 3d 815 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
Willis v. Medders, 2000-2507 (La.12/8/00), .
East Tangipahoa Development Co. v. Bedico Junction, LLC 5 So. 3d 238 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
Willis v. Medders, 2000-2507 (La.12/8/00), .
Wood v. State ex rel. Department of Wildlife & Fisheries 989 So. 2d 280 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
Independent Fire Insurance Company, supra; Willis v. Medders, 2000-2507 (La.12/8/00), .
Peak Performance Physical Therapy & Fitness, LLC v. Hibernia Corp. 992 So. 2d 527 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
Willis v. Medders, 00-2507, p. 2 (La.12/8/00), .
Edward Grogan v. Women's and Children's Hospital, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
Grogan v. WOMEN'S AND CHILDREN'S HOSP. 981 So. 2d 162 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
Willis v. Medders, 00-2507, p. 2 (La.12/8/00), ; see also Indep.
Danos v. Avondale Industries, Inc. 977 So. 2d 1123 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
4 Cir. 2/26/03), , 93 citing Willis v. Medders, 00-2507 (La.12/08/00), and Independent Fire Insurance Co. v. Sunbeam Corp, 99-2181, 99-2257 (La.2/29/00), .
Yokum v. 615 Bourbon Street, LLC 977 So. 2d 859 La. 2008
[37] See also, Willis v. Medders, 00-2507, p. 2 (La.12/8/00); (per curiam) ("[D]espite the legislative mandate that summary judgments are now favored, factual inferences reasonably drawn from the evidence must be construed in favor of the party opposing the motion, and all doubt must be resolved in the opponent's favor.") [38] Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 966
Thibodeaux v. Asbestos Corp. 976 So. 2d 859 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
Willis v. Medders, 00-2507, p. 2 (La.12/08/00), ; Independent Five Insurance Co. v. Sunbeam Corp., 99-2181, 99-2257, p. 17 (La.02/29/00), ; Berthelot v. Avondale Industries, Inc., 2002-1779, (La.App.4.Cir.02/26/03), ; writ denied, .
Gainer v. Specialty Risk Associates, Inc. 977 So. 2d 1089 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
in Willis v. Medders, 00-2507, p. 1 (La.12/8/00), , 1050: First, despite the legislative mandate that summary judgments are now favored, factual inferences reasonably drawn from the evidence must be construed in favor of the party opposing the motion, and all doubt must be resolved in the opponent's favor.
Shannon J. Clement v. Dusty Reeves La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
art. 966(A)(2); Willis v. Medders, 00-2507 (La.12/8/00)
Clement v. Reeves 975 So. 2d 170 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
art. 966(A)(2); Willis v. Medders, 00-2507 (La.12/8/00), .
Input/Output, Inc. v. WILSON GREATBATCH 977 So. 2d 109 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
99-2181 at pp. 16-17, 755 So.2d at 236 ; See also, Willis v. Medders, 00-2507, pp. 2-3 (La.12/8/00), -51 .
Barnett v. Watkins 970 So. 2d 1028 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
Willis v. Medders, *1034 00-2507, p. 2 (La.12/8/00), .
Yokum v. 615 Bourbon Street, LLC 960 So. 2d 1283 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2007
Willis v. Medders, 00-2507, p. 2 (La.12/8/00), .
Shelvin v. INTRALOX, LLC 957 So. 2d 852 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2007
Willis v. Medders, 00-2507, p. 2 (La.2/8/00), .
Simon v. Biddle 946 So. 2d 733 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Willis v. Medders, 00-2507, p. 2 (La.12/8/00), ; Indep.
Latisha Simon v. Dr. Johnny R. Biddle La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Guilbeau v. CUSTOM HOMES BY JIM RUSSELL 950 So. 2d 732 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
Willis v. Medders, 00-2507, p. 2 (La.12/8/00), (per curiam).
Shannon Suarez v. Lp Gaming Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Explained Jane Foster v. Barbara Henshaw La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Explained Foster v. Henshaw 939 So. 2d 625 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
art. 966(A)(2), “factual inferences reasonably drawn from the evidence must be construed in favor of the party opposing the motion, and all doubt must be resolved in the opponent’s favor.” Willis v. Medders, 00-2507, p. 2 (La.12/8/00), ; Indep.
Dumaine v. Gulf Group, Inc. 937 So. 2d 883 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
Willis v. Medders, 2000-2507, p. 2 (La.12/8/00), .
SHANNON CLEMENT VERSUS DUSTY J. REEVES Consolidated With JESSICA VIDRINE VERSUS LAFAYETTE PARISH CONSOLIDATED GOVERNMENT Consolidated With CHRISTINA … La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Clement v. Reeves 935 So. 2d 279 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
art. 966(A)(2); Willis v. Medders, 00-2507 (La.12/8/00), .
Maiorana v. Melancon Metal Bldgs., Inc. 927 So. 2d 700 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
Willis v. Medders, 00-2507, p. 2 (La.12/8/00), .
Explained David Brown and Karen Brown v. Douglas Romero La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Explained Brown v. Romero 922 So. 2d 742 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Willis v. Medders, 00-2507, p. 2 (La.12/8/00), ; Indep.
Succession of Attward Joseph Soileau La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
Succession Soileau 918 So. 2d 563 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
art. 966(A)(2), “factual inferences reasonably drawn from the evidence must be construed in favor of the party opposing the motion, and all doubt must be resolved in the opponent’s favor.” Willis v. Medders, 00-2507, p. 2 (La.12/8/00), ; Indep.
Bell v. Dunn 924 So. 2d 224 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
Willis v. Medders, 00-2507, p. 2 (La.12/8/00), .
Clinton L. Johnson v. Government Employees Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
Johnson v. Government Employees Ins. Co. 916 So. 2d 451 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
Willis v. Medders, 00-2507, p. 2 (La.12/8/00), ; Indep.
Mid-South Analytical Labs v. Jones-Odom 912 So. 2d 101 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
Willis v. Medders, 00-2507 (La.12/8/00), .