Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Savoie v. Rubin, 820 So. 2d 486.

21 citing documents.

Dr. James Stenhouse v. Louisiana Women&39;s Healthcare Associates, L.L. C. La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2025
Hogan v. Williams 274 So. 3d 762 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
Reed v. 21ST Century Centennial Ins. Co. 268 So. 3d 1273 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
Guillory v. City of New Orleans 224 So. 3d 1035 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
Blow v. OneBeacon America Insurance Co. 193 So. 3d 244 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
See Land v. Vidrine, 10-1342, p. 5 (La.3/15/11), ; Savoie v. Rubin, 01-3275, 01-3276, p. 3 (La.6/21/02), .
Garland Miller v. Desoto Regional Health System La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
Miller v. Desoto Regional Health System 128 So. 3d 649 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2013
The “purpose of the ‘bona fide termination’ requirement in malicious prosecution cases is that the underlying litigation should be brought to a conclusion on the merits before a malicious prosecution suit based on the underlying litigation is allowed to proceed.” Savoie v. Rubin, 01-3275, 01-3276, p. 4 (La.6/21/02), .
State of Louisiana v. Brandon Dale Allen La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
6/21/02), (“The function of the court is to interpret the laws so as to give them the 18 meaning which the lawmakers obviously intended them to have and not to construe them so as to give them absurd or ridiculous meanings.”).
State v. Allen 79 So. 3d 1220 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
Savoie v. Rubin, 01-3275, p. 4 (La.6/21/02), (“The function of the court is to interpret the laws so as to give them the 11flmeaning which the lawmakers obviously intended them to have and not to construe them so as to give them absurd or ridiculous meanings.”).
Land v. Vidrine 62 So. 3d 36 La. 2011
P. art. 1841; Savoie v. Rubin, 01-3275, p. 3 (La.6/21/02), .
Farrar v. Certified Coatings of California, Inc. 38 So. 3d 940 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2010
art. 1841; Savoie v. Rubin, 01-3275 (La.6/21/02), .
LeBlanc v. LAFAYETTE CONSOL. GOVERNMENT 983 So. 2d 1022 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
Savoie v. Rubin, 01-3275, 01-3276 (La.6/21/02), .
David Leblanc v. Lafayette Consolidated Government La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
State v. Shaw 969 So. 2d 1233 La. 2007
Savoie v. Rubin, 01-3275, p. 4 (La.6/21/02), ("The function of the court is to interpret the laws so as to give them the meaning which the lawmakers obviously intended them to have and not to construe them so as to give them absurd or ridiculous meanings.").
M & L Industries, LLC v. Derek Hailey La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
M & L INDUSTRIES, LLC v. Hailey 923 So. 2d 869 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
M & L cites Savoie v. Rubin, 01-3275 (La.6/21/02), , and H.R.
A. Imogene Stroud v. Morrison Nursery La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
Stroud v. Morrison Nursery 899 So. 2d 840 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
Savoie v. Rubin, 01-3275, 01-3276 (La.6/21/02), .
HR 10 Profit Sharing Plan v. Mayeux 893 So. 2d 887 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
Savoie v. Rubin, 01-3275 (La.6/21/02), .
State v. Williams 893 So. 2d 7 La. 2004
Savoie v. Rubin, 01-3275, p. 4 (La.6/21/02), ; Webb v. Parish Council *21 Webb v. Parish Council of East Baton Rouge, 217 La.
Amos v. Brown 828 So. 2d 138 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
Savoie v. Rubin, 01-3275, 01-3276 (La.06/21/02), .

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by