Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Maddox v. Steel, 814 So. 2d 569.

17 citing documents.

Eric Mark Allison v. Citgo Petroleum Corporation La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
1 Cir. 9/28/01), -72 (footnote omitted)): The initial burden of proof remains with the mover and is not shifted to the non-moving party until the mover has properly supported the motion and carried the initial burden of proof.
Allison v. Citgo Petroleum Corp. 262 So. 3d 936 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
1 Cir. 9/28/01), , 571-72 (footnote omitted) ): The initial burden of proof remains with the mover and is not shifted to the non-moving party until the mover has properly supported the motion and carried the initial burden of proof.
Patrick Cummins v. R.A.H. Homes, LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
Lfi Fort Pierce, Inc. v. Acme Steel Buildings, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
LFI Fort Pierce, Inc. v. Acme Steel Buildings, Inc. 200 So. 3d 939 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
Manning v. Sampson 50 So. 3d 908 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
App. 1 Cir. 9/28/01), , Melvin Maddox was employed by Western Staff Services (“Western”), a temporary employment service, and contracted to work for Superior Steel, Inc. (“Superior”).
Eva L. Bankston v. Lsu Health Sciences Center, Etc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
Bankston v. LSU HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER 7 So. 3d 170 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Fleming v. JE Merit Constructors, Inc. 985 So. 2d 141 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
Sanchez v. Harbor Const. Co., Inc. 968 So. 2d 783 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2007
Terrance v. Dow Chemical Co. 971 So. 2d 1058 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
McGinnis v. WASTE MANAGEMENT OF LOUISIANA 914 So. 2d 612 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
Jackson v. St. Paul Ins. Co. 897 So. 2d 684 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
Arabie Bros. Trucking Co. v. Gautreaux 880 So. 2d 932 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
Edward Trent, Jr. v. Ppg Industries, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
1 Cir. 9/28/01), -72 (footnote omitted), our brethren of the first circuit, facing a similar situation as we face in this case, stated: A motion for summary judgment is a procedural device used to avoid a full-scale trial when there is no genuine factual dispute.
Trent v. PPG Industries, Inc. 865 So. 2d 1041 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
1 Cir. 9/28/01), -72 (footnote omitted), our brethren of the first circuit, facing a similar situation as we face in this case, stated: A motion for summary judgment is a procedural device used to avoid a full-scale trial when there is no genuine factual dispute.
Griffin v. Wickes Lumber Co. 840 So. 2d 591 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
1 Cir. 9/28/01), ; Vaughn v. BFI Waste Systems of North America, Inc., 01-1105, p. 7 (La.