DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Samaha v. Rau, 977 So. 2d 880.

632 citing documents.

  • Hazelett v. Louisiana-1 Gaming 210 So. 3d 447 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    2/26/08), ; Duncan v. U.S.A.A.
  • Joseph Tatney v. City of Deridder La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
  • Tatney v. City of Deridder 206 So. 3d 1207 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
  • Perrier v. Bellsouth Communication Systems, LLC 204 So. 3d 658 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
  • James v. Berkley Insurance Co. 206 So. 3d 393 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
  • Jackson ex rel. Tyler v. Farquhar 207 So. 3d 1112 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
    2/26/08), ; Snelling v. LSU Health Sciences Ctr., 43,332 (La.App.
  • Patterson Funeral Homes, LLC v. Catlin Specialty Insurance Co. 207 So. 3d 532 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
    2/26/08), ; Thomas v. Willis-Knighton Med.
  • King v. Old Republic Insurance Co. 200 So. 3d 989 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    “A summary judgment is reviewed on appeal de novo, with the appellate court using the same criteria that govern the trial court’s determination of whether summary judgment is appropriate; i.e. whether there is any genuine issue of material fact, and whether the mov-ant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Samaha v. Rau, 2007-1726, pp. 3-4 (La.2/26/08), -83 .
  • Sislo v. New Orleans Center for Creative Arts 198 So. 3d 1202 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    ■ “A summary judgment is reviewed on appeal de novo, with the appellate court using the same criteria that govern the trial court’s determination of whether summary judgment is appropriate; i.e., whether there is any genuine issue of material fact, and whether the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Samaha v. Rau, 2007-1726, pp. 3-4 (La.2/26/08), -83 .
  • Magee v. Williams 197 So. 3d 265 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
    Samaha v. Rau, 2007-1726 (La.2/26/08), .
  • Rogillio v. Avizent & SNL Distribution Services Corp. 196 So. 3d 710 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    2548 , 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986), first places the burden of producing evidence at the hearing on the motion for summary judgment on the mover, who can ordinarily meet that burden j 7by submitting affidavits or by pointing out the lack of factual support for an essential element in the opponent’s case, Samaha v. Rau, 07-1726 (La.2/26/08), ; Babin v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc., 00-0078 (La.6/30/00), .
  • Sonnier v. Gordon 194 So. 3d 47 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
    Samaha v. Rau, 2007-1726 (La.2/26/08), ; Driver Pipeline Co., Inc. v. Cadeville Gas Storage, L.L.C., 49,375 (La.App.2d Cir.10/1/14), , writ denied, 2014-2304 (La.1/23/15), .
  • Thomas v. Tubbs 193 So. 3d 203 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
    Reynolds v. Bordelon, 2014-2371 (La.6/30/15), ; Samaha v. Rau, 2007-1726 (La.2/26/08), .
  • Montz v. Williams 188 So. 3d 1050 La. 2016
    Samaha v. Rau, 07-1726, pp. 5-6 (La.2/26/08), .
  • Mitch Benson v. Rapides Healthcare System, L.L.C. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
  • Joseph v. Hartford Insurance 191 So. 3d 647 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    EAN’s Motion for Summary Judgment Summary judgment is reviewed on appeal de novo, with the appellate court using the same criteria that govern the trial court’s determination of whether summary judgment ..is appropriate; ie. whether there is any genuine issue of material fact, and whether the movant is “entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Samaha v. Rau, 07-1726, pp. 3-4 (La.2/26/08) -83 .
  • Benson v. Rapides Healthcare System, L.L.C. 188 So. 3d 1139 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    Samaha v. Rau, 07-1726 (La.2/26/08), .
  • Sunset Realty, Inc. v. Culp 184 So. 3d 256 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
    Samaha v. Rau, 2007-1726 (La.02/26/08), .
  • Winzer v. Richards 185 So. 3d 876 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
    Samaha v. Rau, 2007-1726 (La.2/26/08), .
  • Spanish Lake Restoration, LLC v. Petrodome St. Gabriel II, LLC 186 So. 3d 230 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    STANDARD OF REVIEW “A motion for summary judgment is a procedural device used when there is no genuine issue of material fact for all- or part of the relief prayed Tor by a litigant.” Samaha v. Rau, 2007-1726, p. 3 (La.2/26/08), (citing Duncan v. U.S.A.A.
  • Lucien v. Dupree 185 So. 3d 107 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
    Samaha v. Rau, 2007-1726 (La.02/26/08), .
  • Jason Kinch v. Our Lady of Lourdes Regional Medical Center La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
  • Kinch v. Our Lady of Lourdes Regional Medical Center 181 So. 3d 900 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
  • Hardison v. Byrne 182 So. 3d 1110 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    “A summary judgment is reviewed on appeal de novo, with the appellate court using the same criteria that govern the trial court’s determination of whether summary judgment is appropriate; ie. whether there is any genuine issue of material fact, and whether the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Samaha v. Rau, 2007-1726, pp. 3-4 (La.2/26/08), -83 .
  • BFH v. First National Bank USA 181 So. 3d 204 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    art. 967(B); Samaha v. Rau, 07-1726 (La.2/26/08), .
  • Robert v. Turner Specialty Services, L.L.C. 182 So. 3d 1069 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    Samaha v. Rau, 2007-1726 (La.2/26/08), ; Driver Pipeline Co., Inc. v. Cadeville Gas Storage,.
  • Paula Fortenberry v. Continental Casualty Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
    2/26/08), -83 (citations omitted); La.Code Civ.P.
  • Fortenberry v. Continental Casualty Co. 179 So. 3d 729 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    STANDARD OF REVIEW The grant or denial of a motion for summary judgment is reviewed de novo, “using the same criteria that govern the trial court’s determination of whether summary judgment is appropriate; i.e. whether there is.any genuine issue of material fact, and whether the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Samaha v. Rau, 07-1726, pp. 3-4 (La.2/26/08), -83 (citations omitted); Code Civ,P. art. 966.
  • Bilyeu v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh 184 So. 3d 69 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
    Schultz v. Guoth, 2010-0343 (La.1/19/11), ; Samaha v. Rau, 2007-1726 (La.2/26/08), .
  • Harbor v. Davie Shoring, Inc. 176 So. 3d 619 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    Standard of Review On appeal, we review a motion for summary judgment de novo, using the same criteria governing the trial court’s determination of whether summary judgment is appropriate, i'e., whether' there exists any genuine issue of material fact and whether, the movant is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law, Samaha v. Rau, 07-1726, pp. 3-4, -83 .
  • Madison v. Inter-Continental Hotels Corp. 173 So. 3d 1246 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    art. 966(B)(2); Samaha v. Rau, 07-1726, p. 4 (La.2/26/08), .
  • Lee v. McGovern 169 So. 3d 814 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
    Samaha v. Rau, 2007-1726 (La.2/26/08), ; Pfiffner v. Correa, supra.
  • Reynolds v. Bordelon 172 So. 3d 607 La. 2015
    Samaha v. Rau, 2007-1726 (La.2/26/08), -83 .
  • Richard L. Reynolds v. Robert J. Bordelon III, Robert J. Bordelon Jr., Usagencies Casualty Insurance Company, Automobile Club … La. 2015
  • Scott v. City of Shreveport 169 So. 3d 770 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
    Samaha v. Rau, 2007-1726 (La.02/26/08), .
  • Theodule P. Noel, Jr. v. Theodule Pierre Noel, Sr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
    2/26/08), -83 (citations omitted); La.Code Civ.P.
  • Noel v. Noel 165 So. 3d 401 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    Standard of Review The grant or denial of a motion for summary judgment ⅛ reviewed de novo, “using the same criteria that govern the trial court’s determination of whether summary judgment is appropriate; i.e. whether there is any genuine issue of material fact, and whether the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Samaha v. Rau, 07-1726, pp. 3-4 (La.2/26/08), -83 (citations omitted); La.
  • Gonzales v. Ochsner Clinic Foundation 170 So. 3d 1099 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    Samaha v. Rau, 07-1726 (La.2/26/08), ; Silvain v. Saer, 09-1103 (La.App.
  • Barrilleaux v. Board of Supervisors 170 So. 3d 1015 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    9:2794; Samaha v. Rau, 07-1726 (La.2/26/08), -84 .
  • Brown v. Norman-Fuegero 165 So. 3d 1059 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    Samaha v. Ran, 2007-1726, pp. 3-4 (La.2/26/08), (citations omitted).
  • Johnson v. Williams 163 So. 3d 880 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
    Samaha v. Rau, 2007-1726 (La.2/26/08), ; Driver Pipeline Co., Inc. v. Cadeville Gas Storage, LLC, 49,375 (La.App.2d Cir.10/1/14), , writ denied, 2014-2304 (La.1/23/15), .
  • Citron v. Gentilly Carnival Club, Inc. 165 So. 3d 304 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    Samaha v. Rau, 07-1726, pp. 3-4 (La.2/26/08), -83 ; see also Duncan v. U.S.A.A.
  • Louisiana Safety Ass'n of Timbermen—Self Insurers Fund v. Will Transport, L.L.C. 164 So. 3d 945 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
    Samaha v. Rau, 07-1726 (La.02/26/08), ; Driver Pipeline Co., Inc. v. Cadeville Gas Storage, LLC, 49,375 (La.
  • LeBlanc v. Islam 164 So. 3d 281 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
    9:2794; Samaha v. Rau, 2007-1726 (La.2/26/08), .
  • Daniels v. SMG Crystal, LLC 162 So. 3d 1248 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    Samaha v. Rau, 2007-1726, pp. 3-4 (La.2/26/08), (citations omitted).
  • Serigne v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. 162 So. 3d 1198 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    Samaha v. Rau, 2007-1726, pp. 3-4 (La.2/26/08), (citations omitted).
  • Donald Hodge, Jr., Et Ux. v. Strong Built International, LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
  • David Durham v. Dr. David Brown La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
  • Durham v. Brown 159 So. 3d 1149 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    Generally, expert testimony is required to establish the applicable standard of care and whether a breach of that standard occurred, “except where the negligence is so obvious that a lay person can infer negligence without the guidance of expert testimony.” Samaha v. Rau, 07-1726, p. 6 (La.2/26/08), .
  • Cropprue Rental Properties, LLC v. Michael 162 So. 3d 645 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
    Samaha v. Rau, 2007-1726 (La.02/26/08), ; Thomas v. Willis-Knighton Med.