Cited by

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

258 citing documents.

Patton v. Strogen 908 So. 2d 1282 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
2d Cir.04/03/02), , writ denied, XXXX-XXXX (La.08/30/02), , citing, Willis v. Medders, 2000-2507 (La.12/08/00), ; Independent Fire Ins.
Miller v. Entergy Services, Inc. 913 So. 2d 143 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
Willis v. Medd, 00-2507, p. 2 (La.12/18/00), .
Judson v. Davis 916 So. 2d 1106 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
Willis v. Medders, 00-2507, p. 2 (La.12/8/00), .
Phelps Dunbar, LLP v. Stout 914 So. 2d 44 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
Willis v. Medders, 2000-2507, p. 2 (La.12/08/00), .
Larry M. Bailey v. City of Lafayette La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
National Independent Trust Co., Etc. v. Pan-American Life Ins. Co., Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
Nat. Indep. Trust Co. v. Pan-Amer. Life In. 903 So. 2d 1141 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
Willis v. Medders, 00-2507, p. 2 (La.12/8/00), ; Indep.
Bailey v. City of Lafayette 904 So. 2d 922 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
Willis v. Medders, 00-2507, p. 2 (La.12/8/00), ; Indep.
Shelter Ins. Co. v. Broan-Nutone, LLC 902 So. 2d 1146 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
Willis v. Medders, 00-2507 (La.12/8/00), ; S.G.
Christopher Handy, Etc. v. Union Pacific Railroad Company La. Ct. App. 3d 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)
Handy ex rel. Handy v. Union Pacific Railroad 896 So. 2d 316 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), .
HANDY EX REL. HANDY v. Union Pacific R. Co. 896 So. 2d 316 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
Willis v. Medders, 00-2507, p. 2 (La.12/8/00), .
Abraham v. RICHLAND PARISH HOSP. SERVICE 894 So. 2d 1229 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
Willis v. Medders, 2000-2507 (La.12/8/00), ; Independent Fire Ins.
Bell v. Gold Rush Casino 893 So. 2d 969 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
Willis v. Medders, 00-2507, p. 2 (La.12/8/00), ; Indep.
Reginald James Bell v. the Gold Rush Casino and Om Operating, LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
Hargrove v. Missouri Pacific RR Co. 888 So. 2d 1111 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
Willis v. Medders, 00-2507, p. 2 (La.12/8/00), .
Betty Jean Hargrove v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
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)
Argonaut Great Cent. Ins. Co. v. Hammett 887 So. 2d 704 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
952, citing, Willis v. Medders, 00-2507 (La.12/8/00), ; Independent Fire Ins.
Richard Rodney Laird v. City of Oakdale La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
Laird v. City of Oakdale 886 So. 2d 1262 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
Nonetheless, “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.” Willis v. Medders, 00-2507, p. 2 (La.12/8/00), .
Petti v. Ordon 888 So. 2d 1064 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
Willis v. Medders, 2000-2507, p. 2 (La.12/08/00), .
Holley v. Plum Creek Timber Co. 877 So. 2d 284 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
Willis v. Medders, 2000-2507 (La.12/8/00), .
Ricky Lagrange v. Dynamic Industries, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
Willis v. Medders, 00-2507 (La.12/08/00), Independent Fire Insurance Co. v. Sunbeam Corp., 99-2181, 99-2257 (La.02/29/00)
Lagrange v. Dynamic Industries, Inc. 875 So. 2d 1059 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
Willis v. Medders, 00-2507 (La.12/08/00), ; Independent Fire Insurance Co. v. Sunbeam Corp., 99-2181, 99-2257 (La.02/29/00), .
Barnes v. Riverwood Apartments Partnership 870 So. 2d 490 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
Willis v. Medders, 00-2507 (La.12/8/00), .
Coffee Bay Investors v. Wogc Co. 878 So. 2d 665 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
Willis v. Medders, 00-2507, p. 2 (La.12/8/00), .
Quinn v. RISO Investments, Inc. 869 So. 2d 922 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
Willis v. Medders, 2000-2507, p. 1 (La.12/08/00), .
Wallace v. Red River Center Corp. 867 So. 2d 966 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
Willis v. Medders, 2000-2507 (La.12/08/00), .
Cenance v. Tassin 869 So. 2d 913 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
Willis v. Medders, 00-2507, p. 1 (La.12/08/00), .
Tommie's Novelty v. Velasco 868 So. 2d 962 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
Clementine Fairrow v. James E. Marves La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
Fairrow v. Marves 862 So. 2d 1234 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
McAdams v. Willis Knighton Medical Center 862 So. 2d 1186 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
Willis v. Medders, 2000-2507 (La.12/08/00), .
Jefferson v. Cooper/T. Smith Corp. 858 So. 2d 691 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
Willis v. Medders, 00-2507 (La.12/08/00), ; Independent Fire Insurance Co. v. Sunbeam Corp ., 99-2181, 99-2257 (La.02/29/00), .
Doe v. Jones 857 So. 2d 555 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Willis v. Medders, 00-2507, p. 2 (La.12/8/00), .
Booth v. Acands 854 So. 2d 979 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
Willis v. Medders, 2000-2507, p. 2 (La.12/08/00), .
Watters v. Department of Social Services 849 So. 2d 724 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Willis v. Medders, 2000-2507, p. 2 (La.12/08/00), .
Estate of Levitz v. Broadway 847 So. 2d 170 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
Willis v. Medders, 00-2507 (La.12/8/00), .
HANOVER AMER. INS. CO. v. Trippe Mfg. Co. 843 So. 2d 571 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
Willis v. Medders, 2000-2507 (La.12/08/00), ; South Central Bell Telephone Co. v. Sewerage and Water Bd.
C & S Safety Systems, Inc. v. SSEM Corp. 843 So. 2d 447 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
We also are guided by the Louisiana Supreme Court’s recent pronouncement that “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.” Willis v. Medders, 2000-2507, p. 2 (La.12/8/00), .
Berthelot v. Avondale Industries, Inc. 841 So. 2d 91 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
12/08/00), ; Independent Fire Insurance Co. v. Sunbeam Corp., 99-2181, 99-2257 (La.02/29/00), .
Campbell v. Higman Barge Lines, Inc. 838 So. 2d 80 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
Willis v. Medders, 00-2507, pp. 2-3 (La.12/8/00); -51 .
Sunset Realty, Inc. v. Antonini 836 So. 2d 1173 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
Willis v. Medders, 00-2507 (La.12/8/00), .
Federated Rural Elec. v. Gulf South Cable 833 So. 2d 544 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
[8] Willis v. Medders, 00-2507, p. 3 (La.12/8/00); .
LeBlanc v. Hayes 827 So. 2d 611 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
Despite the legislative mandate favoring summary judgments, “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); .
Pro Source Roofing, Inc. v. Boucher 822 So. 2d 881 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
Willis v. Medders, 00-2507 (La.12/8/00), .
Bertrand v. Air Logistics, Inc. 820 So. 2d 1228 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
Willis v. Medders, 00-2507, p. 2 (La.12/8/00); .
Jones v. Webb 821 So. 2d 614 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
Willis v. Medders, 00-2507 (La.12/8/00), .
Row v. Pierremont Plaza, LLC 814 So. 2d 124 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
Willis v. Medders, 2000-2507 (La.12/08/00), ; Independent Fire Ins.
Laprarie v. Hercules Offshore Corp. 817 So. 2d 149 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
Despite the legislative mandate now favoring summary judgments, “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 Isopponent’s favor.” Willis v. Medders, 00-2507, p. 2 (La.12/8/00); .