DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Bourgeois v. Kost, 846 So. 2d 692.

68 citing documents.

  • In the Interest of Kyla A. Green & Joshua Green La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    5/20/03), Perrodin v. S. Siding Co., Inc., (La.App.
  • In the Interest of Green 1 So. 3d 683 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
    Bourgeois v. Kost, 02-2785 (La.5/20/03), ; Perrodin v. S. Siding Co., Inc., (La.App.
  • Shyne v. Red River Marine Institute, Inc. 981 So. 2d 294 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
    Bourgeois v. Kost, 02-2785 (La.5/20/03), .
  • Savage v. LeBlanc 977 So. 2d 307 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
  • Wooley v. AMCARE HEALTH PLANS OF LOUISIANA, INC. 952 So. 2d 720 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
    Bourgeois v. Kost, 2002-2785, p. 5 (La.5/20/03), ; (La.
  • Robert Neil Guilbeau v. Bayou Chateau Nursing Center La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    5/20/03), (citations omitted), the Louisiana Supreme Court remarked that: It is well settled under our jurisprudence that a judgment which has been signed cannot be altered, amended, or revised by the judge who rendered the same, except in the manner provided by law.
  • Guilbeau v. Bayou Chateau Nursing Center 930 So. 2d 1167 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    In Bourgeois v. Kost, 02-2785, pp. 7-8 (La.5/20/03), (citations omitted), the Louisiana Supreme Court remarked that: It is well settled under our jurisprudence that a judgment which has been signed cannot be altered, amended, or revised by the judge who rendered the same, except in the manner provided by law.
  • Oreman v. Oreman 926 So. 2d 709 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
    The Louisiana Supreme Court has considered the effect of the rendering of two judgments in Bourgeois v. Kost, 02-2785 (La.5/20/03), , as follows: It is well settled under our jurisprudence that a judgment which has been signed cannot be altered, amended, or revised by the judge who rendered the same, except in the manner provided by law.
  • Williams v. Enriquez 915 So. 2d 434 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
    Bourgeois v. Kost, 02-2785 (La.5/20/03), .
  • Blaine Strother v. Continental Casualty Insurance Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    5/20/03), the court 6 was called upon to decide whether the trial court had the authority to alter a prior final judgment in order to render a new judgment in conformity with the intent of the court.
  • Strother v. Continental Cas. Co. 917 So. 2d 551 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    In Bourgeois v. Kost, 2002-2785 (La.5/20/03), , the court was called upon to decide whether the trial court had the authority to alter a prior final judgment in order to render a new judgment in conformity with the intent of the court.
  • Madere v. ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST PARISH 900 So. 2d 73 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
    NOTES [1] Bourgeois v. Kost, 2002-2785 (La.5/20/03), [2] See Gulfco Investment Group, (La.App.
  • Percle v. Morrow 897 So. 2d 760 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
    " (emphasis added) In Bourgeois v. Kost, 02-2785 (La.5/20/03), , the Louisiana Supreme Court stated: La.C.C.P.
  • Scarbrough v. OK Guard Dogs 879 So. 2d 239 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
    See also Bourgeois v. Kost, 02-2785, p. 5 (La.5/20/03), .
  • Roberts v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. 878 So. 2d 631 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
    Bourgeois v. Kost, 02-2785, pp. 7-8 (La.5/20/03), .
  • Lousteau v. K-Mart Corp. 871 So. 2d 618 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
    NOTES [1] Bourgeois v. Kost, 02-2785 (La.5/20/03), .
  • State ex rel. D.T. 847 So. 2d 799 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
    Recently, in Bourgeois v. Kost, 02-2785, p. 8 (La.5/20/03), , 2003 WL 21152851 the supreme court noted that the “Code of Civil Procedure provides only a limited means of correcting errors of substance in a final judgment.” Finding the trial court’s modification of a final judgment to have been without authority, the court held that the amended judgment was an absolute nullity.
  • In Re State Ex. Rel Dt 847 So. 2d 799 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
    Recently, in Bourgeois v. Kost, 02-2785, p. 8 (La.5/20/03), , 2003 WL 21152851 the supreme court noted that the "Code of Civil Procedure provides only a limited means of correcting errors of substance in a final judgment."