Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Power Marketing Direct, Inc. v. Foster, 938 So. 2d 662.

98 citing documents.

Fresenius Medical Care Lake Forest, LLC v. Norman Foster, in His Capacity as Director of Department of Finance; … La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2025
Jennifer Rickerson, Roxanne Diggs, Joseph Rounds, Desaray Joseph, Jenisha Rounds and the Estate of Joseph Triggs, Individually an … La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2025
Bruce Lloyd v. Darlene Elaire La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2025
Nikki Brown Individually and on Behalf of Her Minor Child Jarred Michael Caffey v. Jason Caffey La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2024
Carrere Holdings, LLC v. Charlotte Anne Williamson La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2024
Lzm Properties, LLC v. Private Connection Property, Inc. and John Doe La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2024
9/6/06), and then citing LCR-M Ltd. P’ship v. Jim Hotard Props., L.L.C., 2013-0483, p. 10 (La.
Terence Cooper & Vanessa Cooper v. English Turn Property Owners Association, Inc. La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2023
Pontchartrain Natural Gas System, k/d/s Promix, L.L.C., and Acadian Gas Pipeline System v. Texas Brine Company, LLC La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2023
Latz-Mo, Baldomero, Individually and on Behalf of His Minor Children, Matilde C. Lopez, Edwin B. Lopez, Alba A. … La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2023
9/6/06), see also Arceneaux v. Amstar Corp., 15-0588, p. 5 (La.
Nickie Lejeune v. Kayla Fontenot, M.D. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2023
Wright v. Louisiana Power & Light, 06-1181 (La.3/9/07), (quoting Power Marketing Direct, Inc. v. Foster, 05-2023 (La.9/6/06), ).
Libertas Tax Fund I, LLC v. Candace Taylor La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2022
Camille Landry v. Pediatric Services of America, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
9/6/06), (emphasis added), stated that “trial courts are permitted discretion in deciding when a judgment should be annulled because of fraud or ill practices, to which discretion reviewing courts will defer.” We first note that in its factual findings, the trial court explicitly found the testimony of Judge Bro
Jerry Dregin & Gretchen M. Johnson Dregin v. Benjamin Fred Nutt, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2021
With regard to the standard of appellate review of a trial court’s judgment in a vice of substance matter, the supreme court, in Power Marketing Direct, Inc. v. Foster, 05-2023, p. 11 (La.9/6/06), stated that “trial courts are permitted discretion in deciding when a judgment should be annulled because of fraud or ill practices, to which discretion reviewing courts will defer.” Buster’s Frozen Custard, LLC v. Lancaster Mfg., Inc., 15-947, pp.15- 16 (La.
Morgan City Land and Fur Company, L.L.C. v. Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co., L.L.C. La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2021
9/6/06), see also Arceneaux v. Amstar Corp., 15-0588, p. 5 (La.
William Vance v. International House Of Pancakes, Llc La. 2021
David A. Reardon v. Global Awnings of Louisiana, L.L.C. La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2020
9/6/06), McCall v. Marshall, 51,708 (La.
William Vance v. International House of Pancakes,llc La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2020
Camille Landry v. Pediatric Services of America, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2020
ently broad to encompass all situations where a judgment is rendered through some improper practice or procedure which operates, even innocently, to deprive the party cast in judgment of some legal right, and where the enforcement of the judgment would be unconscionable and inequitable.” Power Marketing [Direct, Inc. v. Foster, 05–2023, p. 13 (La.9/6/06), ]; Kem Search, supra at 1070 (citing Chauvin v. Nelkin Ins.
Payphone Connection Plus, Inc. v. Wagners Chef, LLC La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2019
art. 1702(A); Power Marketing Direct[, Inc. v. Foster, 05-2023, p. 10 (La.9/6/06), ]; [Frank L. Maraist, Louisiana Civil Law Treatise: Civil Procedure § 12.3, at 452-53 (2d ed.2008)].
In re River St. Ventures, L. L.C. 265 So. 3d 940 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
09/06/06), , wherein the Louisiana Supreme Court found that although there was notice on the defendant, grounds for ill practice under La.
Tracy Alexander v. State of La; Dept. of Children & Family Services La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
9/6/06), ] 671; Kem Search, supra at 1070 (citing Chauvin v. Nelkin Ins.
Alexander v. State 249 So. 3d 95 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
9/6/06), ,] 671 ; Kem Search, supra at 1070 (citing Chauvin v. Nelkin Ins.
Aguillard v. Chatman 239 So. 3d 300 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
9/6/06), , 670 ), our supreme court addressed a nullity action, explaining: In Johnson v. Jones-Journet , this Court reviewed the historical development of C.C.P.
Caleb Kent Aguillard v. John Christopher Chatman La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
9/6/06), ), our supreme court addressed a nullity action, explaining: this Court reviewed the historical development of C.C.P.
Evans v. Jolly 229 So. 3d 650 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
Ernest N. Morial New Orleans Exhibition Hall Authority v. New Limits New Limits, LLC 215 So. 3d 974 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
9/6/06), ]; [Frank L.] Maraist, [Louisiana Civil Law Treatise: Civil Procedure § 12.3,] at 452-53 [ (2d ed.2008) ].
Keaty v. RPM International, Inc. 208 So. 3d 507 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
9/6/06), ; Spencer v. James, 42,168 (La.App.
Buster's Frozen Custard, LLC v. Lancaster Manufacturing, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
9/6/06), stated that ―trial courts are permitted discretion in deciding when a judgment should be annulled because of fraud or ill practices, to which discretion reviewing courts will defer.‖ We first note that in its factual findings, the trial court found Ms. de la Houssaye‘s testimony more credible than that
Buster's Frozen Custard, LLC v. Lancaster Manufacturing, Inc. 190 So. 3d 1239 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
’With.regal’d to the standard of appellate review- of a trial.court’s judgment in a.vice of-substance matter, the supreme court, in Power Marketing Direct, Inc. v. poster, 05-2023, p. 11 (La.9/6/06), , stated that “trial courts are permitted discretion in .deciding when -a,.-judgment should be.annulled because of fraud .or ill practices, to which discretion reviewing courts will defer¡” We first noté thát in its factual findings,' the trial court found Ms. de' la Houssaye’s testimony more credib
Wolfe v. Leland 193 So. 3d 236 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
Power Marketing Direct, Inc. v. Foster, 05-2023 (La.9/6/06), ; Wells Fargo Bank, 117 So.3d at 1266 .
State v. Smith 194 So. 3d 29 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
C.C.P.2004; Power Marketing Direct, Inc. v. Foster, 05-2023 (La.09/06/06), .
Camille Landry v. Pediatric Services of America, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
9/6/06), ]; Kem Search, supra at 1070 (citing Chauvin v. Nelkin Ins.
Landry v. Pediatric Services of America, Inc. 189 So. 3d 540 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
or intentional wrongdoing, but is sufficiently broad to encompass all situations where a judgment is rendered through some improper practice or procedure which operates, even innocently, to deprive the party cast in judgment of some legal right, and where the enforcement of the judgment would be unconscionable and inequitable.” Power Marketing [Direct, Inc. v. Foster, 05-2023, p. 13 (La.9/6/06), ]; Kem Search, supra at 1070 (citing Chauvin v. Nelkin Ins.
Marilyn Williams Hedlesky v. Steven Hedlesky La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
Hedlesky v. Hedlesky 187 So. 3d 510 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
Wright v. Louisiana Power & Light, 06-1181 (La.3/9/07), (quoting Power Marketing Direct, Inc. v. Foster, 05-2023 (La.9/6/06), ).
Ezzell v. Miranne 185 So. 3d 171 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
v. Foster, 05-2023 (La.9/6/06), .
O'Hara v. Globus Medical, Inc. 181 So. 3d 69 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
art. 966(A)(2); Power Marketing Direct, Inc. v. Foster, 2005-2023 (La.9/6/06), .
Camille Landry v. Pediatric Services of America, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
9/6/06), (emphasis added).
Louisiana Pigment Company, Lp v. Air Liquide America Corp., Lp La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
9/6/06), but noted that in Lejano, the decision involved the application of federal law in a maritime setting; and that in Power Marketing, the supreme court‟s language on the issue was merely dictum as the supreme court was not required to reach that issue in rendering its decision.
Landry v. Pediatric Services of America, Inc. 149 So. 3d 1012 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Rather, it is “sufficiently broad enough to encompass all situations wherein a judgment is rendered through some improper practice or procedure which operates, even innocently, to deprive the party cast in judgment of some legal right, and where the enforcement of the judgment would be unconscionable and inequitable.” Power Marketing Direct, Inc. v. Foster, 05-2023, p. 16 (La.9/6/06), (emphasis added).
Louisiana Pigment Co. v. Air Liquide America, L.P. 149 So. 3d 997 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
52 , 142 L.Ed.2d 40 (1998), and Power Marketing Direct, Inc. v. Foster, 05-2023 (La.9/6/06), , 1 but noted that in Lejano , the decision involved the application of federal law in a maritime setting; and that in Power Marketing, the supreme court’s language on the issue was merely dictum as the supreme court was not required to reach that issue in rendering its decision.
Romious v. CBSL Transportation Services, Inc. 142 So. 3d 228 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
art. 1701(A); Power Marketing Direct, Inc. v. Foster, 05-2023 (La.9/6/06), .
Montana v. Jordan 135 So. 3d 1212 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
See Power Marketing Direct, Inc. v. Foster, 05-2023, p. 12 (La.9/16/06), ; LCR-M Ltd. P’ship v. Jim Hotard Props., L.L.C., 13-0483, p. 10 (La.App.
Kevin W. Jones, Sr. v. Town of Woodworth La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
Jones v. Town of Woodworth 132 So. 3d 422 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
Direct, Inc. v. Foster, 05-2023 (La.9/6/06), ).
Fidelak v. Holmes European Motors, L.L.C. 130 So. 3d 851 La. 2013
Finally, in Power Marketing Direct, Inc. v. Foster, 05-2023 (La.9/6/06), , a non-maritime case, this Court cited Lejano for the proposition that "forum selection clauses are legal and binding in Louisiana and should be enforced absent a clear showing that enforcement would be unreasonable or unjust, or that the clause is invalid for such reasons as fraud or overreaching.” However, in
M.P.W. v. L.P.W. 136 So. 3d 37 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
art. 966(A)(2); Power Marketing Direct, Inc. v. Foster, 2005-2023 (La.9/6/06), .
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Tonagel 117 So. 3d 1263 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
This judgment of default is commonly referred to as the “preliminary default.” See Power Marketing Direct, Inc. v. Foster, 05-2023, p. 10 (La.9/6/06), .
Joseph Charles Carpenter v. Allied Waste La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
Carpenter v. Allied Waste 109 So. 3d 1039 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
Direct, Inc. v. Foster, 05-2023 (La.9/6/06), ).