Cited by

3/ 2/ 05), Expert Mechanical Services, Inc., 418 So.

3/ 2/ 05), we 6 A trial court may render a partial summary judgment dispositive of a particular issue, theory of recovery, cause of action, or defense, in favor of one or more parties, even though the grant of summary judgment does not dispose of the entire case as to that party or parties.

3/ 2/ 05), the TrufundlCourt reasoned as follows in dismissing the City -Parish' s appeal: W] e find the trial court abused its discretion in certifying the February 12, 2020 judgment as a partial final judgment under La.

3/ 2/ 05), we conclude that the district court properly designated the judgment as a final judgment for purposes of appeal.

3/ 2/ 05), we conclude that the district court properly designated the judgment as a final judgment for purposes of appeal.

3/ 2/ 05), requires the court to make a de novo determination by looking to the record for any justification for maintaining the appeal.

312105), that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, and, therefore, we dismiss this appeal.

3/ 2105), Kosak v. Louisiana Farm Bureau Casualty Ins.

312105), Kosak v. Louisiana Farm Bureau Casualty Ins.

3/ 2/ 05), Asay v. Safeco Ins.

3/2/05), in order to address the “limited procedural issue” of whether the “express determination that there is no just reason for delay” as required by La.Code Civ.P.

3/ 2/ 05), we conclude that the trial court did not err in designating the amended judgment as final.

3/ 2/ 05), and determining that the close relationship between the adjudicated and unadjudicated claims (pre-acquisition and post -acquisition) provided reason for delay, making an immediate appeal inappropriate.