DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Kinchen v. Livingston Parish Council, 967 So. 2d 1137.

29 citing documents.

  • Cynthia Walker v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., Safety National Casualty Corporation, and Joseph Rashaun Wimberly La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2021
  • Melinda Descant & Charles Descant v. King Buffet, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2020
    See Kinchen v. Livingston Parish Council, 07–478 (La.10/16/07)
  • Agrifund, LLC v. Radar Ridge Planting Co., Inc. and Thomas A. Dickerson La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2019
    10/16/07), Hebert v. Shelton, 2008-1275 (La.
  • Port City Glass & Paint Inc. v. Simmie Brooks 266 So. 3d 516 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2019
    10/16/07), ; Hebert v. Shelton , 2008-1275 (La.
  • Succession of Robert Lee Poteet La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
    10/16/07), ) (alteration in original).
  • In re Poteet 238 So. 3d 1020 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
    10/16/07), , 1138 ) (alteration in original).
  • On Leong Chinese Merchants Ass'n v. AKM Acquisitions, L.L.C. 185 So. 3d 80 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    Kinchen v. Livingston Parish Council, 07-478 (La.10/16/07), .
  • Aaron Emigh v. West Calcasieu Cameron Hospital 145 So. 3d 369 La. 2014
    Kinchen v. Livingston Parish Council, 07-0478 (La.10/16/07), .
  • Hoti, Inc. v. Jason Hart La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
    10/16/07), (quoting Fink v. Bryant, 01-987 (La.
  • HOTI, Inc. v. Hart 134 So. 3d 245 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    The Louisiana Supreme Court explained the standard of review of the sustainment or denial of a peremptory exception raising the objection of no cause of action in Kin-chen v. Livingston Parish Council, 07-478, p. 2 (La.10/16/07), (quoting Fink v. Bryant, 01-987 (La.11/28/01), -49 ) as follows (alteration in original): The function of the peremptory exception of no cause of action is to question whether the law extends a remedy to anyone under the factual allegations of the petition.
  • Thornton v. Carthon 114 So. 3d 554 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
    Kinchen v. Livingston Parish Council, 07-0478 (La.10/16/07), ; Fink v. Bryant, 01-0987 (La.11/28/01), .
  • Humble v. Pafford EMS 116 So. 3d 878 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
    Kinchen v. Livingston Parish Council, 2007-0478 (La.10/16/07), ; Fink v. Bryant, 2001-0987 (La.11/28/01), .
  • W.T.A. v. M.Y. 58 So. 3d 612 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    Hebert, (quoting Kinchen v. Livingston Parish Council, 07-478, p. 2 (La.10/16/07), ).
  • Mike Salem v. City of Alexandria La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
  • Salem v. City of Alexandria 56 So. 3d 457 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    Hebert, (quoting Kinchen v. Livingston Parish Council, 07-478, p. 2 (La.10/16/07), ).
  • State ex rel. L.M. 57 So. 3d 518 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
    Kinchen v. Livingston Parish Council, 2007-0478 (La.10/16/07), ; Fink v. Bryant, 2001-0987 (La.11/28/01), .
  • Delisa Mitchell, Indiv. v. Albert Roy, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
    10/16/07), (quoting Colvin v. La.
  • Mitchell v. Roy 51 So. 3d 153 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    “The meaning and intent of a law is determined by considering the law in its entirety and all other laws on the same subject matter and by placing a construction on the law that is consistent with the express terms of the law and with the obvious intent of the legislature in enacting the law.” Kinchen v. Livingston Parish Council, 07-478, p. 5 (La.10/16/07), , (quoting Colvin v. La.
  • Hawkins v. Redmon 42 So. 3d 360 La. 2010
    10/16/07), , quoting State v. Dick, 06-2223 (La.1/26/07), .
  • In Re Clegg 41 So. 3d 1141 La. 2010
    Kinchen v. Livingston Parish Council, 07-0478 (Lajl0/16/07),21 (quoting State v. Dick, 06-2223 (La.1/26/07), ).
  • Swift v. Juvenile Court 30 So. 3d 1186 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
    10/16/07), (quoting Fink v. Bryant, 01-0987, pp. 3-4 (La.
  • Financial Indemnity Co. v. Mark & Michelle Gagnard La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
  • Joan Beauregard v. State of La, Thru the Dotd La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
    10/16/07), (quoting Fink v. Bryant, 01-0987, pp. 3-4 (La.
  • Beauregard v. State Ex Rel. DOTD 21 So. 3d 442 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    1 .STANDARD OF REVIEW In Kinchen v. Livingston Parish Council, 07-0478, p. 2 (La.10/16/07), (quoting Fink v. Bryant, 01-0987, pp. 3-4 (La.11/29/01), -49 ), the supreme court set forth the role of an appellate court in reviewing a trial court’s sustainment or denial of a peremptory exception of no cause of action: The function of the peremptory exception of no cause of action is to que
  • Glenn M. Hebert v. J. Elise Shelton La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
  • Hebert v. Shelton 11 So. 3d 1197 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    See, Kinchen v. Livingston Parish Council, 07-478 (La.10/16/07), .
  • Gobert v. S.W.D.I., L.L.C. 13 So. 3d 608 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    |/The Louisiana Supreme Court explained the standard of review of the sus-tainment or denial of a peremptory exception raising the objection of no cause of action in Kinchen v. Livingston Parish Council, 2007-0478 (La.10/16/07), (citing Fink v. Bryant, 2001-0987 (La.11/28/01), -49 ) as follows: The function of the peremptory exception of no cause of action is to question whether the law extends a remedy to anyone under the factual allegations of the petition.
  • Elta Moss v. Winfred Thomas Barrett III La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    10/16/07), (alteration in original).
  • Moss v. Barrett 977 So. 2d 310 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    10/16/07), (alteration in original).