Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Yokum v. 615 Bourbon Street, LLC, 977 So. 2d 859.

36 citing documents.

Sean Herigodt and Project Nemo, L3c v. Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, Dr. Shawn D. Wilson in … La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2025
Wanda Anderson v. Guzzino Commercial, LLC. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2024
2/26/08), the fifth circuit found it was reasonable to conclude that the landowner “knew or should have known of (its lessee’s) employee’s negligent activity taking place on its property, and that (the landowner) 5 failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent the resulting damages
Calvin J. Hill, Individually and as the of the Succession of Elnora Johnson Hill v. TMR Exploration, Inc., … La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2023
2126108), S The Hills' position in the district court that La.
Blake Babcock v. Joseph Blackman and GEICO County Mutual Insurance Company La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2021
2/26/08), Willis v. Medders, 2000-2507 (La.
Haynes Interests, LLC; COS Investment Group, LLC; Blue Bayou Water Park, LLC; Dixie Landin, LLC v. Garney Companies, … La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2021
Anthony James Landry v. Guzzino Commercial, LLC. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2020
2/26/08), our supreme court discussed the nature of liability under La.Civ.Code art. 667 in light of legislative amendments enacted by the legislature in La.Acts 1996, 1st Ex.Sess., No.1, §1.
Yokum v. Funky 544 Rhythm & Blues Cafe 248 So. 3d 723 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
Kenner Plumbing Supply, Inc. v. Rusich Detailing, Inc. 175 So. 3d 479 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
In Yokum v. 615 Bourbon St, L.L.C., 07-1785 (La.2/26/08), , the Louisiana Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether an owner/lessor of immovable property can be held liable for the actions of its lessee under La.
Janet Troquille v. Stirling Properties, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
DISCUSSION “Appellate courts review summary judgment de novo, using the same criteria that govern the trial court's consideration of whether summary judgment is appropriate, and in the light most favorable to the non-movant.” Yokum v. 615 Bourbon Street, L.L.C., 07-1785, p. 25 (La.2/26/08), (citing Suire v. Lafayette City- Parish Consol.
Troquille v. Stirling Properties, Inc. 150 So. 3d 677 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
DISCUSSION “Appellate courts review summary judgment de novo, using the same criteria that govern the trial court’s consideration of whether summary judgment is appropriate, and in the light most favorable to the non-movant.” Yokum v. 615 Bourbon Street, L.L.C., 07-1785, p. |⅞25 (La.2/26/08), (citing Suire v. Lafayette City-Parish Consol.
Ursula Marie Ratliff v. Regional Extended Home Care Personnel Services, LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
2/26/08), (citing Suire v. Lafayette City-Parish Consol.
Rattliff v. Regional Extended Home Care Personnel Services, L.L.C. 134 So. 3d 129 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
| LAW AND DISCUSSION “Appellate courts review summary judgment de novo, using the same crite *131 ria that govern the trial court’s consideration of whether summary judgment is appropriate, and in the light most favorable to the non-movant.” Yokum v. 615 Bourbon Street, L.L.C., p. 25 (La.2/26/08), (citing Swire v. Lafayette City-Parish Consol.
Gravity Drainage District 8, Ward 1 v. Larry Doiron, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
2/26/08), (citing Suire v. Lafayette City-Parish Consol.
Gravity Drainage District 8 of Ward 1 v. Larry Doiron, Inc. 103 So. 3d 1247 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
n and the District[ ] and in awarding attorney fees and costs to the District.” LAW AND DISCUSSION Motions for Summary Judgment “Appellate courts review summary judgment de novo, using the same criteria that govern the trial court’s consideration of whether summary judgment is appropriate, and in the light most favorable to the non-movant.” Yokum v. 615 Bourbon Street, L.L.C., p. 25 (La.2/26/08), (citing Suire v. Lafayette City-Parish Consol.
Hawkins v. Unum Life Insurance Co. of America 99 So. 3d 24 La. 2012
“Appellate courts review summary judgment de novo, using the same criteria that govern the trial court’s consideration of whether summary judgment is appropriate, and in the light most favorable to the non-movant.” Yokum v. 615 Bourbon Street, L.L.C., 07-1785, p. 25 (La.2/26/08), (citing Suire v. Lafayette City-Parish Consol.
Marshall v. Air Liquide-Big Three, Inc. 107 So. 3d 13 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
“It is a ‘general principle of law, that owners may use their property as they please, with the exception that they do no injury to others,’ under the theory of ‘sic tuum utere ut alium non laedas.’ ” Yokum v. 615 Bourbon St., L.L.C., 07-1785, p. 17 (La.2/26/08), , quoting Boatner v. Henderson & Al., 5 Mart, (n.s.)
R. Chadwick Edwards, Jr. v. Larose Scrap & Salvage, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
2/26/08), (citing Suire v. Lafayette City-Parish Consol.
Brent J. Menard v. Louisiana Department of Health & Hospitals La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
2/26/08), (citing Suire v. Lafayette City–Parish Consol.
Menard v. Louisiana Department of Health & Hospitals 94 So. 3d 15 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
“Appellate courts review summary judgment de novo, using the same criteria that govern the trial court’s consideration of whether summary judgment is appropriate, and in the light most favorable to the non-movant.” Yokum v. 615 Bourbon Street, L.L.C., 07-1785, p. 25 (La.2/26/08), (citing Suire v. Lafayette City-Parish Consol.
Edwards v. Larose Scrap & Salvage, Inc. 89 So. 3d 1227 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
STANDARD OF REVIEW “Appellate courts review summary judgment de novo, using the same criteria that govern the trial court’s consideration of whether summary judgment is appropriate, and in the light most favorable to the non-movant.” Yokum v. 615 Bourbon Street, L.L.C., [2007-1785,] p. 25 (La.2/26/08), (citing Suire v. Lafayette City-Parish Consol.
Patricia Parker v. Town of Woodworth La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
2/26/08), -78 (footnotes omitted).
Parker v. Town of Woodworth 86 So. 3d 141 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Yokum v. 615 Bourbon Street, L.L.C., 07-1785, pp. 25-26 (La.2/26/08), -78 (footnotes omitted).
Johnnie Thomas Gunter v. Jefferson Davis Parish La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
2/26/08), (citing Suire v. Lafayette City-Parish Consol.
Gunter v. Jefferson Davis Parish 84 So. 3d 705 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
LAW AND DISCUSSION “Appellate courts review summary judgment de novo, using the same criteria that govern the trial court’s consideration of whether summary judgment is appropriate, and in the light most favorable to the non-movant.” Yokum v. 615 Bourbon Street, L.L.C., p. 25 (La.2/26/08), (citing Suire v. Lafayette City-Parish Consol.
Jon Andrew Delahoussaye v. the Roman Catholic Diocese of Lafayette La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
2/26/08), (citing Suire v. Lafayette City-Parish Consol.
Delahoussaye v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Lafayette 80 So. 3d 1244 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
Standard of Review “Appellate courts review summary judgment de novo, using the same criteria that govern the trial court’s consideration of whether summary judgment is appropriate, and in the light most favorable to the non-movant.” Yokum v. 615 Bourbon Street, L.L.C., p. 25 (La.2/26/08), (citing Suire v. Lafayette City-Parish Consol.
Dr. Harry Kleinman v. William Patrick Bennett La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
2/26/08), (citing Suire v. Lafayette City-Parish Consol.
Kleinman v. Bennett 80 So. 3d 689 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
DISCUSSION Standard of Review “Appellate courts review summary judgment de novo, using the same criteria that *692 govern the trial court’s consideration of whether summary judgment is appropriate, and in the light most favorable to the non-movant.” Yokum v. 615 Bourbon Street, L.L.C., 07-1785, p. 25 (La.2/26/08), (citing Suire v. Lafayette City-Parish Consol.
Romano v. Altentaler 77 So. 3d 282 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
Yokum v. 615 Bourbon Street, L.L.C., 07-1785 (La.2/26/08), .
McGee v. Mutter 67 So. 3d 517 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
The plaintiff relies primarily on Yokum v. 615 Bourbon Street, L.L.C., 07-1785 (La.2/26/08), (La.App.
Manton v. AUDUBON NATURE INSTITUTE, INC. 64 So. 3d 326 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
Yokum v. 615 Bourbon Street, L.L.C., 07-1785, p. 25 (La.2/26/08), ; Suire v. Lafayette City-Parish Gov’t, 04-1459, p. 11 (La.4/12/05), .
Jimes v. Lopez 57 So. 3d 1118 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
Yokum v. 615 Bourbon Street, L.L.C.
Bruno v. Bellsouth/The Berry Co. 59 So. 3d 1265 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
Phipps v. Schupp, 09-2037, p. 3 (La.7/6/10), (citing, Yokum v. 615 Bourbon Street, L.L.C., 07-1785 (La.2/26/08), ).
Lloyd v. Shady Lake Nursing Home, Inc. 47 So. 3d 609 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
Yokum v. 615 Bourbon St., L.L.C., 2007-1785 (La.2/26/08), .
Phipps v. Schupp 45 So. 3d 593 La. 2010
C., 07-1785, p. 25 (La.2/26/08), .
Moonraker Island Phase III Architectural Committee, Inc. v. Marks Lake, Inc. 992 So. 2d 592 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008