Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Fakier v. STATE, BD. OF SUP'RS FOR UNIV., 983 So. 2d 1024.

29 citing documents.

Kenneth Paul Lyons v. Axiall Corporation La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2020
Succession of Donald Carl Hodge, Sr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
3 Cir. 5/28/08), which relied on the following factors which are set forth in R.J.
Nugie Roy, Et Ux. v. Gerald Wayne Cormier, Et Ux. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
3 Cir. 5/28/08), which relied on the following factors which are set forth in R.J.
Kenneth John Lecompte, Et Ux. v. Afc Enterprises, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
Joseph Washington, Jr. v. Allstate Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
Kite Bros. LLC v. Alan Kite La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
3 Cir. 5/28/08), set forth the 4 procedure to be followed in reviewing an Article 1915(B) judgment designated without reasons: The proper standard of review for an order designating a judgment as final and immediately appealable, when the order is accompa
Kite v. KITE BROS. 74 So. 3d 1266 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
3 Cir. 5/28/08) , , set forth the 15procedure to be followed in reviewing an Article 1915(B) judgment designated without reasons: The proper standard of review for an order designating a judgment as final and immediately appealable, when the order is accompanied by explicit reasons for the certification, is whether the trial cour
Mavis S. Stephens v. Paul David Strahan, II, Et Ux. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
Stephens v. Strahan 62 So. 3d 894 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
Jack L. Duty v. Louisiana Firefighters' Retirement System La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
Del Dean David, Et Ux. v. Velsicol Chemical Corp. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
Susan and Edward L. Wilhelm v. Mosaic Global Operations, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
David v. Velsicol Chem. Corp. 49 So. 3d 997 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Sys., 08-111 (La.App.3 Cir. 5/28/08), .
Willa M. Montgomery v. US Agencies Casualty Insurance Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
3 Cir. 5/28/08), this court set forth the standard of review applicable in this instance as follows: The proper standard of review for an order designating a judgment as final and immediately appealable, when the order is accompanied by explicit reasons for the certification, is whether the trial
Gunderson v. F.A. Richard & Associates 44 So. 3d 779 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
3 Cir. 5/28/08) , , this court examined the issue of whether a partial judgment was a final judgment for purposes of an immediate appeal when reasons were not given with the designation.
Clark Gunderson, M.D. v. F. A. Richard & Associates, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
3 Cir. 5/28/08), this court examined the issue of whether a partial judgment was a final judgment for purposes of an immediate appeal when reasons were not given with the designation.
Jonathon Guillory v. Progressive Security Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
3 Cir. 5/28/08), this court set forth the standard of review applicable in this instance as follows: 2 The proper standard of review for an order designating a judgment as final and immediately appealable, when the order is accompanied by explicit reasons for the
Creighton, Richards & Higdon, L.L.C. v. Richards Clearview, L.L.C. 28 So. 3d 391 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
3 Cir. 5/28/08) , , the court recited the non-exclusive factors for use by the trial court when determining the certification of a judgment and for use by appellate courts when conducting a de novo review when no reasons are given by the trial court for its designation.
Elaine Setliff v. Aaron Slayter La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
3 Cir. 5/28/08), which relied on the following factors for examining certification which are set forth in R.J.
Setliff v. Slayter 19 So. 3d 43 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
3 Cir. 5/28/08) , , *45 which relied on the following factors for examining certification which are set forth in R.J.
Frank Cavazzo v. Gray Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
3 Cir. 5/28/08), this court examined the issue of whether a partial judgment was a final judgment for purposes of an immediate appeal.
CAVAZZO v. Gray Ins. Co. 8 So. 3d 129 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
3 Cir. 5/28/08) , , this court examined the issue of whether a partial judgment was a final judgment for purposes of an immediate appeal.
Frank's Casing Crew & Rental Tools, Inc. v. David L. Sipos La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
3 Cir. 5/28/08), we decline to conduct a de novo review of the trial court’s ruling on summary judgment, as the ruling is moot given the limitations of the injunction and the conclusions reached by the fact finder after trial on the merits.
Frank's Casing Crew & Rental Tools, Inc. v. Sipos 6 So. 3d 298 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
3 Cir. 5/28/08) , , we decline to conduct a de novo review of the trial court’s ruling on summary judgment, as the ruling is moot given the limitations of the injunction and the conclusions reached by the fact finder after trial on the merits.
Elaine Setliff v. Aaron Slayter La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
3 Cir. 5/28/08), this court examined the issue of whether a partial judgment was a final judgment for purposes of an immediate appeal.
Setliff v. Slayter 1 So. 3d 799 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
3 Cir. 5/28/08) , , this court examined the issue of whether a partial judgment was a final judgment for purposes of an immediate appeal.
Succession of David Jones, Jr. A/K/A David Jones, III A/K/A David Jones La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
3 Cir. 5/28/08), this court examined the issue of whether a partial judgment was a final judgment for purposes of an immediate appeal.
Succession of Jones 999 So. 2d 3 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
3 Cir. 5/28/08) , , this court examined the issue of whether a partial judgment was a final judgment for purposes of an immediate appeal.
Kevin Tate v. State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008