Buggage v. Volks Constructors
Also decided on this docket: La., September 1, 2006 936 So. 2d 189
Buggage v. Volks Constructors, 928 So. 2d 536 (La. 2006).
Cited by
- Geneva Hawthorne v. Tulane Medical Center, Dr. Jessica Debord, Dr. Anish J. Patel La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2022
- Algieonne Stagg v. Huey Segura, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
- Stonetrust Commercial Insurance Company v. Wayne Dennis Stevenson La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2022
- J. Benjamin Zapata And Amanda Zapata v. Stephen Wayne La. 2021
- Thuy Tran, Wife of/and Thai Bui; Quan Hoang, on Behalf of His Minor Children, … La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2021
- Daniel Harris v. Boh Bros. Construction Co., LLC and Abc Insurance Company La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2020
- Byron D. Poirrier, Junior v. Lannie Denoux and Bernice Denoux, and insurer, Centauri Specialty … La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2020
- Gaudin & Gaudin, a Professional Law Corporation Versus Iberiabank Corporation La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2020
- Nile of Louisiana, Inc. v. Dusty Gates, Sheriff, in his official capacity as Ex-Officio … La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2020
- Beverly Reed, Lisa Reed, Ricky Reed, Kent Reed, Patricia Anding, Kirby Reed, Larry Reed, … La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2019
- Warren Doucet v. Superior Gauging Services, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
- Doucet v. Superior Gauging Servs., Inc. 268 So. 3d 1082 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- American Bank & Tru. Co. v. Inte. Dev. Corp. 506 So. 2d 1234
Opinion text
928 So.2d 536 (2006) Edward BUGGAGE v. VOLKS CONSTRUCTORS, A Division of AKM, LLC., ABC and XYZ Insurance Companies and John Fridge. No. 2006-C-0175. Supreme Court of Louisiana. May 5, 2006. PER CURIAM. Writ granted. The ruling of the court of appeal is reversed. The trial court's ruling granting the motion for summary judgment filed by Volks Constructors, Inc., is reinstated. The court of appeal erred as a matter of law in considering a late-filed opposition to the motion for summary judgment, which consisted of a memorandum and a purported affidavit of plaintiff, in its de novo review of the merits of the summary judgment motion. The opposition had been disallowed by the trial court, which acted within its discretion in excluding an opposition filed a few minutes before the scheduled hearing on the motion. The time limitation established by La. C.C.P. art. 966(B) for the serving of affidavits in opposition to a motion for summary judgment is mandatory; affidavits not timely filed can be ruled inadmissible and properly excluded by the trial court. See American Bank & Trust Company v. International Development Corporation, Inc., 506 So.2d 1234, 1235-36 (La.App. 1 Cir.1987). Given the facts and circumstances of this case, we find no abuse of discretion by the trial court in excluding the opposition, and thus no error in granting the motion for summary judgment in favor of the defendant.