Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Benniefiel v. Zurich American Insurance, 10 So. 3d 381.

14 citing documents.

Patricia Sasser-Ford v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
3 Cir. 5/6/09), -85, this court noted: In Bell v. Gold Rush Casino, 04-1123, p. 7 (La.App.
Marie Benniefiel v. Zurich American Insurance Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
3 Cir. 5/6/09), -84 (footnotes omitted) (alterations in original), wherein this court summarized the procedural history to that point, as follows: The Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, seeking to dismiss Ms. Benniefiel’s claims, on August 5, 2004.
Benniefiel v. Stine, L.L.C. 112 So. 3d 997 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
3 Cir. 5/6/09), -84 (footnotes omitted) (alterations in original), wherein this court summarized the procedural history to that point, as follows: The Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, seeking to dismiss Ms. Benniefiel’s claims, on August 5, 2004.
Sasser-Ford v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 112 So. 3d 968 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
8 Cir. 5/6/09), -85 , this court noted: In Bell v. Gold Rush Casino, 04-1123, p. 7 (La.App.
Ultra Pure Water Technologies, Inc. v. Standex International Corp. D/B/A Master-Bilt La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
3 Cir. 5/6/09), (quoting Brittain v. Family Care Servs., Inc., 34,787, p. 4 (La.App.
Ultra Pure Water Technologies, Inc. v. Standex International Corp. 89 So. 3d 1282 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
3 Cir. 5/6/09), (quoting Brittain v. Family Care Servs., Inc., 34,-787, p. 4 (La.App.
Jane Doe v. Scott M. Hawkins La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
3 Cir. 5/6/09), (quoting Brittain v. Family Care Servs., Inc., 34,787, p. 4 (La.App.
Doe v. Hawkins 42 So. 3d 1000 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
3 Cir. 5/6/09), (quoting Brittain *1011 v. Family Care Servs., Inc., 34,787, p. 4 (La.App.
Michael and Christine Dauzat v. State of La., Dotd La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
3 Cir. 5/6/09), finding that the evidence in the record “clearly create[d] a genuine issue of material fact relative to the issue of comparative fault which must go to the trier of fact and not be disposed of via summary judgment.” We further noted that “‘it is not a function of the trial court on a motion for summary judgm
Dauzat v. State, Department of Transportation & Development 28 So. 3d 1236 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
3 Cir. 5/6/09), , finding that the evidence in the record “clearly create[d] a genuine issue of material fact relative to the issue of comparative fault which must go to the trier of fact and not be disposed of via summary judgment.” We further noted that “ ‘it is not a function of the trial court on a motion for summary judgmen
Charlotte Broussard v. Hertz Equipment Rental Corporation La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
Broussard v. Hertz Equipment Rental Corp. 27 So. 3d 337 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
Keith Allen Portie v. Flavin Realty, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
Portie v. Flavin [Realty] Inc. 22 So. 3d 1143 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by