Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Henderson v. Sellers, 861 So. 2d 923.

20 citing documents.

Carol L. Darby v. John Lee Citizen and State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
3 Cir. 12/17/03), Bankston v. Bankston, 97–2509 (La.App.
Kristin Sweezy Harriss v. Micah Bradley Harriss La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
3 Cir. 12/17/03)] [Succesion of] Willis, [96-479 (La.App.
Jude Broussard, Et Ux. v. Lafayette Physical Rehabilitation Hospital La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
3 Cir. 12/17/03), Bankston v. Bankston, 97-2509 (La.App.
Broussard v. Lafayette Physical Rehabilitation Hospital, LLC 191 So. 3d 1202 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
3 Cir. 12/17/03) , ; Bankston v. Bankston, 97-2509 (La.App.
Richard Le v. Nitetown, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
3 Cir. 12/17/03), (battery between minors); Glod v. Baker, 08-355, p. 15 (La.App.
Le v. Nitetown, Inc. 72 So. 3d 374 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
3 Cir. 12/17/03) , (battery between minors); Glod v. Baker, 08-355, p. 15 (La.App.
Mary Lu Doucet Hardee v. City of Jennings La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
Hardee v. City of Jennings 65 So. 3d 266 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
Joseph Graham v. Catherine Bernheimer La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
3 Cir. 12/17/03), wherein this court held that “[t]he trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to grant a new trial for the purpose of introducing evidence that was available at the time of the trial.” Accordingly, the plaintiff’s second assignment of error lacks merit.
Graham v. Bernheimer 6 So. 3d 343 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
3 Cir. 12/17/03), , wherein this court held that “[t]he trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to grant a new trial for the purpose of introducing evidence that was available at the time of the trial.” Accordingly, the plaintiffs second assignment of error lacks merit.
Succession of William J. Moss La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
3 Cir. 12/17/03), this court reviewed the “law of the case” doctrine as follows: In Cree Oil Co. v. Home Ins.
In Re Succession of Moss 980 So. 2d 120 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
3 Cir. 12/17/03), , this court reviewed the "law of the case" doctrine as follows: In Cree Oil Co. v. Home Ins.
Landry v. LONESTAR CORROSION SERVICES, INC. 977 So. 2d 310 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
James E. Landry v. Lonestar Corrosion Services, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
James E. Viviano, Et Ux. v. Progressive Security Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
3 Cir. 12/17/03), Bankston v. Bankston, 97-2509 (La.App.
Viviano v. Progressive SEC. Ins. Co. 920 So. 2d 313 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
3 Cir. 12/17/03) , ; Bankston v. Bankston, 97-2509 (La.App.
Carol Dejean v. St. Charles Gaming Company, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
Dejean v. St. Charles Gaming Co. 903 So. 2d 521 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
Shirley Gauthier v. Newty Paul Gauthier La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
3 Cir. 12/17/03), Bankston v. Bankston, 97-2509 (La.App.
Gauthier v. Gauthier 886 So. 2d 681 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
3 Cir. 12/17/03) , ; Bankston v. Bankston, 97-2509 (La.App.