DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Fink v. Bryant, 801 So. 2d 346.

249 citing documents.

  • Tiffany Chaisson v. Trans Teche, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    Fink v. Bryant, 01-0987, p. 4 (La.11/28/01), City of New Orleans at p. 28, 640 So.2d at 253.
  • R. Alan Kite v. Jeffrey D. Kite La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    1 DISCUSSION In Fink v. Bryant, 01-0987, pp. 3-4 (La.11/28/01), -49 (citations omitted), our supreme court stated: The function of the peremptory exception of no cause of action is to question whether the law extends a remedy to anyone under the factual allegations of the petition.
  • Kite v. Kite 62 So. 3d 313 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    J^DISCUSSION In Fink v. Bryant, 01-0987, pp. 3-4 (La.11/28/01), -49 (citations omitted), our supreme court stated: The function of the peremptory exception of no cause of action is to question whether the law extends a remedy to anyone under the factual allegations of the petition.
  • R-Plex Enterprises, LLC v. Desvignes 61 So. 3d 37 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    Thus, for purposes of determining the issues raised by the exception, “the well]pleadedfi facts in the petition must be accepted as true.” Fink v. Bryant, 2001-0987, p. 4 (La.11/28/01), .
  • James Ronald Savoie v. Romel Charles La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    Fink v. Bryant, 01-0987, p. 4 (La.11/28/01), City of New Orleans at p. 28, 640 So.2d at 253.
  • Savoie v. Charles 55 So. 3d 1029 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    Fink v. Bryant, 01-0987, p. 4 (La.11/28/01), ; City of New Orleans at p. 28 , 640 So.2d at 253 .
  • Cadle Co. v. Henson 57 So. 3d 458 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
    Fink v. Bryant, 01-0987 (La.11/28/01), .
  • State ex rel. L.M. 57 So. 3d 518 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
    Kinchen v. Livingston Parish Council, 2007-0478 (La.10/16/07), ; Fink v. Bryant, 2001-0987 (La.11/28/01), .
  • Vaccari v. Vaccari 50 So. 3d 139 La. 2010
    Louisiana law ‘abhors a gap in the support of one in need.’ ” Fink v. Bryant, 01-0987 (La.11/28/01)
  • Smith v. Pillow-Smith 52 So. 3d 264 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    Fink v. Bryant, 01-987, p. 7 (La.11/28/01), .
  • David Eugene Garcia v. Michelle Rushing Garcia La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
  • Garcia v. Garcia 49 So. 3d 601 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    3 Cir. 5/2/07), (citing Fink v. Bryant, 01-987 (La.11/28/01), ).
  • Samantha Dauzat v. Financial Indemnity Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
  • Dauzart v. Financial Indemnity Insurance Co. 39 So. 3d 802 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    f the exception of no cause of action, in articulating the standard of review which governs our consideration of this, the supreme court explained: “the appellate court and this Court should subject the case to de novo review because the exception raises a question of law and the trial court’s decision is based only on the sufficiency of the petition.” Fink v. Bryant, 01-0987, p. 4 (La.11/28/01), .
  • Asset Enterprises, L.L.C. v. River Realty, L.L.C. 40 So. 3d 257 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    Fink v. Bryant, 01-987, pp. 3-4 (La.11/28/01), -49 .
  • Mabry v. Andrus 34 So. 3d 1075 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
    Fink v. Bryant, 2003-0987 (La.11/28/01), .
  • Dr. Rita Rae Fontenot v. Denise Manuel Saxby La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
    Fink v. Bryant, 01-987 (La.11/28/01)
  • Connie L. Parker v. Elliot R. Champagne La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
    pellate review: An action to recover past due child support in a contempt of court proceeding “requires the trial judge to determine that a party’s disobedience of the court’s support order constitutes the parent’s willful or deliberate refusal to perform an act which was within the power of the parent to perform.” Fink v. Bryant, 01-0987, p. 7 (La.11/28/01)
  • Parker v. Champagne 30 So. 3d 1188 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
    Fink v. Bryant, 01-0987, p. 7 (La.11/28/01), .
  • Fontenot v. Saxby 34 So. 3d 477 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    Fink v. Bryant, 01-987 (La.11/28/01), .
  • Swift v. Juvenile Court 30 So. 3d 1186 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
    11/29/01), -49 ), the supreme court set forth the role of an appellate court in reviewing a trial court's sustainment or denial of a peremptory exception of no cause of action: The function of the peremptory exception of no cause of action is to question whether the law extends a remedy to anyone under the factual allegation
  • State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Jimmy Charles Bosley La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
    11/28/01), (review of ruling sustaining an exception of no cause of action is de novo review).
  • State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Bosley 30 So. 3d 287 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
    11/28/01), (review of ruling sustaining an exception of no cause of action is de novo review).
  • Deronza Thomas Fobbs v. Larry Marvell Fobbs La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
  • Guidry v. Hanover Insurance Co. 28 So. 3d 426 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    Fink v. Bryant, 01-0987, p. 4 (La.11/28/01), ; Zurich, 08-546 at 8-9, 8 So.3d at 96 .
  • Fobbs v. Fobbs 25 So. 3d 168 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
    Fink v. Bryant, 01-0987, p. 7 (La.11/28/01), .
  • Ryan William Price v. Randy J. Fuerst La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
  • Wade P. Richard v. Daniel G. Richard La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
  • Richard v. Richard 24 So. 3d 292 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    Fink v. Bryant, 2001-0987, p. 3 (La.11/29/01), .
  • Price v. Fuerst 24 So. 3d 289 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    entitled to the relief sought.” Articulating the standard of review which governs an exception of no cause of action, the supreme court explained, “the appellate court and this Court should subject the case to de novo review because the exception raises a question of law and the trial court’s decision is based only on the sufficiency of the petition.” Fink v. Bryant, 01-0987, p. 4 (La.11/28/01), .
  • Foti v. Holliday 27 So. 3d 813 La. 2009
    Fink v. Bryant, 01-0987, p. 4 (La.11/28/01), .
  • Sundown Express, Inc. v. Gonzales 27 So. 3d 867 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    Fink v. Bryant, 01-0987, p. 4 (La.11/28/01), (Citation omitted).
  • Joan Beauregard v. State of La, Thru the Dotd La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
    11/29/01), -49), the supreme court set forth the role of an appellate court in reviewing a trial court’s sustainment or denial of a peremptory exception of no cause of action: The function of the peremptory exception of no cause of action is to question whether the law extends a remedy to anyone under the fact
  • Beauregard v. State Ex Rel. DOTD 21 So. 3d 442 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    1 .STANDARD OF REVIEW In Kinchen v. Livingston Parish Council, 07-0478, p. 2 (La.10/16/07), (quoting Fink v. Bryant, 01-0987, pp. 3-4 (La.11/29/01), -49 ), the supreme court set forth the role of an appellate court in reviewing a trial court’s sustainment or denial of a peremptory exception of no cause of action: The function of the peremptory exception of no cause of action is to question whether the law extends a remedy to anyone under the factual allegation
  • 831 Bartholomew Investments-A, L.L.C. v. Margulis 20 So. 3d 532 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    Fink v. Bryant, 01-0987, p. 4 (La.11/28/01), ; City of New Orleans at p. 28 , 640 So.2d at 253 .
  • Watkins v. Cheatham 19 So. 3d 33 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    Fink v. Bryant, 01-0987, p. 4 (La.11/28/01), ; City of New Orleans at p. 28 , 640 So.2d at 253 .
  • Air Supply, Inc. v. Wahlder 10 So. 3d 896 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
    11/28/01), -349 (citations omitted), the court said: The function of the peremptory exception of no cause of action is to question whether the law extends a remedy to anyone under the factual allegations of the petition.
  • Air Supply, Inc. v. Michael M. Wahlder La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
    11/28/01), -349 (citations omitted), the court said: The function of the peremptory exception of no cause of action is to question whether the law extends a remedy to anyone under the factual allegations of the petition.
  • Avery v. CITIMORTGAGE, INC. 15 So. 3d 240 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    Fink v. Bryant, 2001-0987, p. 3 (La.11/28/01), -49 .
  • Trans Pacific Interactive, Inc. v. US Telemetry Corporation 9 So. 3d 355 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
  • Gobert v. S.W.D.I., L.L.C. 13 So. 3d 608 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    |/The Louisiana Supreme Court explained the standard of review of the sus-tainment or denial of a peremptory exception raising the objection of no cause of action in Kinchen v. Livingston Parish Council, 2007-0478 (La.10/16/07), (citing Fink v. Bryant, 2001-0987 (La.11/28/01), -49 ) as follows: The function of the peremptory exception of no cause of action is to question whether the law extends a remedy to anyone under the factual allegations of the petition.
  • ZEITOUN v. City of New Orleans 9 So. 3d 1025 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    Fink v. Bryant, 2001-0987, p. 3 (La.11/28/01), -49 .
  • USAA Life Insurance Co. v. Krake 7 So. 3d 78 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    1 Cir. 8/11/08) , ; Fink v. Bryant, 2001-0987, p. 7 (La.11/28/01), .
  • Schmidt v. Schmidt 6 So. 3d 197 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    Fink v. Bryant, 01-0987, p. 4 (La.11/28/01), ; City of New Orleans at p. 28 , 640 So.2d at 253 .
  • Zurich American Ins. Co. v. QUEEN'S MACHINERY CO., LTD. 8 So. 3d 91 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    Fink v. Bryant, 01-0987, p. 4 (La.11/28/01), (Citation omitted).
  • Bello v. Bello 3 So. 3d 559 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    Fink v. Bryant, 2001-0987 (La.11/28/01), .
  • Aguillard v. Aguillard 9 So. 3d 183 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
    Fink v. Bryant, 2001-0987, p. 7 (La.11/28/01), .
  • J.M.Y. v. R.R. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    1 DISCUSSION The supreme court discussed the standard of review of an exception of no cause of action in Fink v. Bryant, 01-0987, pp. 3-4 (La.11/29/01), -349 (citations omitted): The function of the peremptory exception of no cause of action is to question whether the law extends a remedy to anyone under the factual allegations of the petition.
  • Jmy v. Rr 1 So. 3d 725 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    DISCUSSION The supreme court discussed the standard of review of an exception of no cause of action in Fink v. Bryant, 01-0987, pp. 3-4 (La.11/29/01), -349 (citations omitted): The function of the peremptory exception of no cause of action is to question whether the law extends a remedy to anyone under the factual allegations of the petition.
  • J.M.Y. v. R.R. 1 So. 3d 725 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
    | ¿DISCUSSION The supreme court discussed the standard of review of an exception of no cause of action in Fink v. Bryant, 01-0987, pp. 3-4 (La.11/29/01), -349 (citations omitted): The function of the peremptory exception of no cause of action is to question whether the law extends a remedy to anyone under the factual allegations of the petition.