Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Champagne v. Ward, 893 So. 2d 773.

196 citing documents.

Davis v. Scottsdale Insurance Co. 128 So. 3d 471 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
Champagne v. Ward, 03-3211, p. 4 (La.1/19/05), ; Mag-non v. Collins, 98-2822 (La.7/7/99), .
Love v. Sirey 119 So. 3d 732 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
5 Cir. 4/7/09) , , writ denied, 09-1187 (La.9/18/09), , citing Champagne v. Ward, 03-3211 (La.1/19/05), -77 .
KMJ Services, Inc. v. Hood 115 So. 3d 34 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
5 Cir. 4/7/09) , , citing, Champagne v. Ward, 03-3211 p. 5 (La.1/19/05), -77 .
Orleans Parish School Board v. State, Division of Administration 177 So. 3d 711 La. 2013
The Louisiana Supreme Court and this Court have recognized that “a genuine issue’ is a triable issue,’ an issue in which reasonable persons could disagree” and that “a material fact’ is a fact, the existence or nonexistence of which may be essential to plaintiffs cause of action under the applicable theory of recovery.” Champagne v. Ward, 03-3211, p. 5 (La.1/19/05), ; Mitchell v. Villien, 08-1470, p. 5 (La.App.
State v. Louisiana Land & Exploration Co. 110 So. 3d 1038 La. 2013
This court has explained, a “genuine issue” is a “triable issue,” or “one as to Rwhich reasonable persons could disagree.” Hogg v. Chevron, 2009-2632, p. 6 (La.7/6/10); ; Champagne v. Ward, 2003-3211, p. 5 (La.1/19/05); .
Louisiana High School Athletics Ass'n v. State 107 So. 3d 583 La. 2013
art. 966(C)(2); Champagne v. Ward, 03-3211 (La.1/19/05), ).
Flowers v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 99 So. 3d 696 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Robinso n, supra, at 1043, citing, Champagne v. Ward, 03-3211, p. 5 (La.1/19/05), -77 .
Henry v. NOHSC Houma 1, L.L.C. 97 So. 3d 470 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Champagne v. Ward, 03-3211 (La.1/19/05), .
Williams v. Asbestos 95 So. 3d 497 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
“As this court has explained, a ‘genuine issue’ is a ‘triable issue,’ or one as to which reasonable persons could disagree.” Hogg v. Chevron USA, Inc., 09-2632, p. 6 (La.7/6/10), , quoting Champagne v. Ward, OS-3211, p. 5 (La.1/19/05), .
Dalton D. Broussard, Et Ux. v. Progressive Security Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
Broussard v. Progressive Security Insurance Co. 94 So. 3d 94 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Champagne v. Ward, 03-8211 (La.1/19/05), .
Duckett v. Grambling State University 92 So. 3d 478 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
Champagne v. Ward, 03-3211 (La.1/19/05), .
Collins v. Downes 83 So. 3d 1177 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Champagne v. Ward, 03-3211, p. 4 (La.1/19/05), .
Czop v. White 80 So. 3d 1255 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
Champagne v. Ward, 2003-3211 (La.1/19/05), .
Wilbert Bates, Et Ux. v. E. D. Bullard Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
Stanley G. Vickery v. Venture Logistics La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
Champagne v. Ward, 03-3211 (La.1/19/05)
Bates v. E.D. Bullard Co. 76 So. 3d 111 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
Champagne v. Ward, 03-3211 (La.1/19/05), .
Vickery v. VENTURE LOGISTICS 74 So. 3d 861 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
Champagne v. Ward, 03-3211 (La.1/19/05), .
Safeguard Storage Properties, L.L.C. v. Donahue Favret Contractors, Inc. 60 So. 3d 110 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
“As this court has explained, a ‘genuine issue’ is a ‘triable issue,’ or one as to which reasonable persons could disagree.” Hogg v. Chevron USA, Inc., 09-2632, p. 6 (La.7/6/10), , quoting Champagne v. Ward, 03-3211, p. 5 (La.1/19/05), .
Hunter v. MAXIMUM GROUP BEHAVIORAL SERVICES, INC. 61 So. 3d 735 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
“Appellate courts review summary judgments de novo ” under “the same criteria that govern the district court’s consideration of whether summary judgment is appropriate.” Champagne v. Ward, 03-3211, p. 4 (La.1/19/05), .
Bertha Gruver v. the Kroger Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
A ‘material fact’ is a fact, the existence or non-existence of which may be essential to a cause of action under the applicable theory of recovery.” Hogg, 45 So.3d at 997 (citations omitted), citing Champagne v. Ward, 03-3211 (La.1/19/05)
Gruver v. Kroger Co. 54 So. 3d 1249 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
A ‘material fact’ is a fact, the existence or non-existence of which may be essential to a cause of action under the applicable theory of recovery.” Hogg, 45 So.3d at 997 (citations omitted), citing Champagne v. Ward, 03-3211 (La.1/19/05), .
Sensebe v. Canal Indemnity Co. 58 So. 3d 441 La. 2011
See Champagne v. Ward, 2003-3211, p. 22 (La.1/19/05), .
Farber v. Bobear 56 So. 3d 1061 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
Champagne v. Ward, 2003-3211, p. 4 (La.1/19/05), .
Pearson v. DELAUNE 54 So. 3d 172 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Champagne v. Ward, 03-3211, p. 4 (La.1/19/05), .
Ray Bias v. Scottsdale Insurance Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
See Champagne v. Ward, 03-3211 (La.1/19/05)
Bias v. Scottsdale Insurance Co. 50 So. 3d 964 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
See Champagne v. Ward, 03-3211 (La.1/19/05), .
Del Dean David, Et Ux. v. Velsicol Chemical Corp. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
Mary, 05-2364 (La.10/15/06), as well as motions for summary judgment, see Champagne v. Ward, 03-3211 (La.1/19/05)
Susan and Edward L. Wilhelm v. Mosaic Global Operations, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
Mary, 05-2364 (La.10/15/06), as well as motions for summary judgment, see Champagne v. Ward, 03-3211 (La.1/19/05)
David v. Velsicol Chem. Corp. 49 So. 3d 997 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Mary, 05-2364 (La.10/15/06), , as well as motions for summary judgment, see Champagne v. Ward, 03-3211 (La.1/19/05), .
Falgoust v. Avondale Industries, Inc. 54 So. 3d 656 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Kennedy , 05-1418 at p. 26, -687, citing Champagne v. Ward, 03-3211, p. 5 (La.1/19/05), .
Hogg v. Chevron USA, Inc. 45 So. 3d 991 La. 2010
Champagne v. Ward, 03-3211, p. 5 (La.1/19/05), .
James Irving Fontenot v. Interstate Distributor Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
Fontenot v. INTERSTATE DISTRIBUTOR CO. 37 So. 3d 1095 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Champagne v. Ward, 03-3211 (La.1/19/05), .
Wendling v. Chambliss 36 So. 3d 333 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Pursuant to the supreme court case of Champagne v. Ward, 03-3211 (La.1/19/05), , which like the case herein, involved an accident that occurred in Louisiana causing injury to a Mississippi resident who was driving a vehicle covered by an insurance policy negotiated and issued in Mississippi, we are instructed to first determine that there is a difference between Louisiana’s UM law and the UM law
RACHAL EX REL. REGAN v. State 29 So. 3d 595 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Champagne v. Ward, 03-3211, p. 5 (La.1/19/05), .
Frank Curiel, Sr. v. Joey Alcede La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
Curiel v. ALCEDE 20 So. 3d 583 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Champagne v. Ward, 03-3211 (La.1/19/05), .
Mitchell v. Villien 19 So. 3d 557 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Kennedy , 05-1418 at p. 26, -687, citing Champagne v. Ward, 03-3211, p. 5 (La.1/19/05), .
Roux v. Pflueger 16 So. 3d 590 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Champagne v. Ward, 03-3211, p. 5 (La.1/19/05), .
Triche v. Martin 13 So. 3d 649 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
which states that the statute ‘shall apply to the issuance of uninsured motorist coverage in this state.’” Champagne v. Ward, 03-3211 (La.1/19/05), -86 .
Nelson v. Robinson 10 So. 3d 356 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
In Champagne v. Ward, 03-3211 (La.1/19/05), , the supreme court explained that the amendment expands UM coverage to include coverage for any accident occurring in the state involving a resident of the state.
Robinson v. Jefferson Parish School Board 9 So. 3d 1035 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2009
Champagne v. Ward, 03-3211, p. 5 (La.1/19/05), -77 (Citation omitted).
Denbury Onshore, LLC v. Jean Fontenot Pucheu La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
Denbury Onshore, L.L.C. v. Pucheu 6 So. 3d 386 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Champagne v. Ward, 03-3211 (La.1/19/05), .
Lee Joseph Petitjean, Jr. v. Hibernia National Bank of Lake Charles La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
Cindi Babineaux v. Pnk (Lake Charles), LLC, L'Auberge Du Lac Hotel & Casino La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
Babineaux v. PNK (Lake Charles), L.L.C. 6 So. 3d 939 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Wooley v. Lucksinger 14 So. 3d 311 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
art. 107; Champagne v. Ward, 2003-3211, p. 21 (La.1/19/05), .
Brock v. CARONNA 8 So. 3d 22 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Champagne v. Ward, 2003-3211, pp. 4-5 (La.1/19/05), .

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by