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.

  • Hodge v. Strong Built International, LLC 159 So. 3d 1159 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    Samaha v. Rau, 07-1726 (La.2/26/08), .
  • Rodgers v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 162 So. 3d 508 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
    Samaha v. Rau, 2007-1726 (La.2/26/08), .
  • The Bank of New York Mellon v. Whitney Blaine Smith, Et Ux. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
    2/26/08), -83 (footnote omitted), discussed the appellate standard of review for summary judgments: 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 for by a litigant.
  • Bank of New York Mellon v. Smith 159 So. 3d 1088 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    ANALYSIS This Louisiana Supreme Court in Sam-aba v. Ran, 07-1726, p. 3 (La.2/26/08), -83 (footnote omitted), discussed the appellate standard of review for summary judgments: 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 for by a litigant.
  • Walters v. City of West Monroe 162 So. 3d 419 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
    Samaha v. Rau, 07-1726 (La.2/26/08), ; Hakim v. O’Donnell, 49,140 (La.App.2d Cir.6/25/14), .
  • Smith v. Tsatsoulis 158 So. 3d 887 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    Samaha v. Rau, 2007-1726, pp. 3-4 (La.2/26/08), (citations omitted).
  • Carlos Turner v. Lafayette Parish Consolidated Government La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
  • Crescent City Property Redevelopment Associates, LLC v. Southern Fidelity Insurance, Inc. 158 So. 3d 100 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    As established in Samaha v. Rau, 07-1726, pp. 3-4 (La.2/26/08), -883 , 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 mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
  • Robert H. Rhyne, Jr. v. Omni Energy Services Corp. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
    2/26/08), -83 (citations omitted); La.Code Civ.P.
  • Keith William MacKmer v. the Estate of Frank Angelle, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
    2/26/08), -83 (footnote omitted).
  • Rhyne v. Omni Energy Services Corp. 155 So. 3d 155 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    t in Favor of XL Specialty Insurance Co. 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); La.
  • Mackmer v. Estate of Angelle 155 So. 3d 125 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    Samaha v. Rau, 07-1726, pp. 3-4 (La.2/26/08), -83 (footnote omitted).
  • Syzygy Construction, LLC v. McKey 156 So. 3d 763 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    1,,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 for by a litigant.” Samaha v. Rau, 2007-1726, p. 3 *766 (La.2/26/08), (citing Duncan v. U.S.A.A.
  • Tatum v. Shroff 153 So. 3d 561 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
    Samaha v. Rau, 2007-1726 (La.2/26/08), .
  • Stevens v. City of Shreveport 152 So. 3d 1071 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
    Samaha v. Rau, 2007-1726 (La.2/26/08), .
  • Grant v. Sneed 155 So. 3d 61 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
    Samaha v. Rau, 2007-1726 (La.2/26/08), .
  • Davis v. Riverside Court Condominium Ass'n Phase II, Inc. 154 So. 3d 643 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    Schultz v. Guoth, 10-0343, pp. 5-6 (La.1/19/11), -06 (citing Samaha v. Rau, 07-1726, p. 4 (La.2/26/08), .)
  • Steib v. Waguespack 168 So. 3d 410 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    9:2794; Samaha v. Rau, 2007-1726 (La.2/26/08), -84 .
  • Joseph Andrus Cormier, Sr., Et Ux. v. Coldwell Bankers La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
    2/26/08), -83 (footnote omitted).
  • Cormier v. Coldwell Banker 150 So. 3d 557 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    Samaha v. Rau, 07-1726, pp. 3-4 (La.2/26/08), , 882^83 (footnote omitted).
  • Louisiana Workers' Compensation Corp. v. Gilligan 150 So. 3d 482 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
    Samaha v. Rau, 2007-1726 (La.02/26/08), ; Amos v. Crouch, 46,456 (La.App.2d Cir.06/29/11), .
  • Driver Pipeline Co. v. Cadeville Gas Storage, LLC 150 So. 3d 492 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
    Samaha v. Rau, 2007-1726 (La.2/26/08), ; Amos v. Crouch, 46,456 (La.App.2d Cir.6/29/11), ; Carter Enterprises, LLC v. Scott Equipment Co., LLC, 46,862 (La.App.2d Cir.4/11/12), .
  • Hakim v. O'Donnell 144 So. 3d 1179 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    Samaba v. Rau, 2007-1726 (La.2/26/08), ; Amos v. Crouch, 46,456 (La.App.2d Cir.6/29/11), ; Carter Enterprises, LLC v. Scott Equipment Co., LLC, 46,862 (La.App.2d Cir.4/11/12), .
  • Batt v. Cohen 139 So. 3d 1284 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    Samaha v. Rau, 2007-1726, pp. 3-4 (La.2/26/08), (citations omitted).
  • Medical Review Panel Proceedings for the Claim of Serpas v. Tulane University Hospital & Clinic 161 So. 3d 726 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    The medical review panel’s opinion “is admissible, expert medical evidence that may be used to support or oppose any subsequent medical malpractice suit.” Samaha v. Rau, 07-1726, p. 15 (La.2/26/08)
  • Darce v. Roberts 142 So. 3d 173 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    art. 966; Samaha v. Rau, 07-1726 (La.2/26/08), -83 ; Duncan v. U.S.A.A.
  • Carlos Boone, Et Ux. v. Conoco Phillips Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
    2/26/08), -83 (citations omitted); La.Code Civ.P.
  • Khammash v. Clark 145 So. 3d 246 La. 2014
    § 9:2794’s requirements without medical experts.” Pfiffner v. Correa, 94-0992 (La.10/17/94), ; see also Samaha v. Rau, 07-1726, pp. 5-6 (La.2/26/08), -84 .
  • Boone v. Conoco Phillips Co. 139 So. 3d 1047 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    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); La.Code Civ.P.
  • Robert Chastant v. Laura Futral Chastant La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
    5 Samaha v. Rau, 07-1726, pp. 3-4 (La.2/26/08), -83 (footnote omitted).
  • Chastant v. Chastant 138 So. 3d 801 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    Samaha v. Rau, 07-1726, pp. 3 — 4 (La.2/26/08), -83 (footnote omitted).
  • Davis v. Canadian National Railway 137 So. 3d 11 La. 2014
    Samaha v. Rau, 07-1726 (La.2/26/08), -88 .
  • Susan Arnaud, Et Ux. v. Ronald Dies La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
    Smitko v. Gulf South Shrimp, Inc., 11-1566, p. 7 (La.7/2/12), Samaha v. Rau, 07-1726, pp. 3-4 (La.2/26/08), - 83.
  • Arnaud v. Dies 153 So. 3d 453 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    Smitko v. Gulf South Shrimp, Inc., 11-1566, p. 7 (La.7/2/12), ; Samaha v. Rau, 07-1726, pp. 3-4 (La.2/26/08), -83 .
  • Black v. Johnson 137 So. 3d 170 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    Samaha v. Rau, 2007-1726 (La.2/26/08), .
  • Portillo v. Progressive Paloverde Insurance Co. 138 So. 3d 696 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    Oubre v. Louisiana Citizens Fair Plan, 11-97 (La.12/16/11), ; citing Schultz v. Guoth, 10-0343 (La.1/19/11), ; Samaha v. Rau, 07-1726 (La.2/26/08), -83 ; Duncan v. U.S.A.A.
  • Welkin Smith, Indiv. v. Rapides Healthcare System, L.L.C. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
  • Michelle Dore Reinke v. Dr. Stanley Kordisch La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
    Schultz, supra; Samaha v. Rau, 07–1726 (La.2/26/08)
  • Reinke v. Kordisch 134 So. 3d 176 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    Schultz, supra; Samaha v. Rau, 07-1726 (La.2/26/08), .
  • Smith v. Rapides Healthcare System, L.L.C. 134 So. 3d 122 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    Louisiana appellate courts have consistently held that in medical malpractice suits, “[e]xpert testimony is generally required to establish the applicable standard of care and whether or not that standard was breached, 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, pp. 5-6 (La.2/26/08), .
  • Sibert v. National Oil Well Varco, L.P. 136 So. 3d 283 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
    Schultz v. Guoth, supra; Samaha v. Rau, 2007-1726 (La.2/26/08), .
  • William K. Rogers, Etc. v. Hilltop Retirement & Rehabilitation Center La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
  • Janie Lejeune v. Louisiana Medical Mutual Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
    Schultz, supra; Samaha v. Rau, 07–1726 (La.2/26/08)
  • Cynthia Bridges, Sec., La Dept. of Revenue v. Cepolk Corporation La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
    2/26/08), -83 (citations omitted); La.Code Civ.P.
  • Lejeune v. Louisiana Medical Mutual Insurance Co. 153 So. 3d 1021 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    Schultz, supra; Samaha v. Rau, 07-1726 (La.2/26/08), .
  • Bridges v. Cepolk Corp. 153 So. 3d 1137 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    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); La.
  • Rogers v. Hilltop Retirement & Rehabilitation Center 153 So. 3d 1053 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    | 8Samaha v. Rau, 07-1726, pp. 5-6 (La.2/26/08), -84 .
  • Foster v. Patwardhan 132 So. 3d 495 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
    Samaha v. Rau, 2007-1726 (La.02/26/08), ; Thomas v. Willis-Knighton Med.
  • Hohensee v. Turner 133 So. 3d 141 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    Samaha v. Rau, 07-1726, pp. 3-4, -83 .
  • Garrison v. Old Man River Esplanade, L.L.C. 133 So. 3d 699 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    Samaha v. Rau, 07-1726 (La.2/26/08), ; Duncan v. USAA Ins.