Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Boykin v. PPG Industries, Inc., 987 So. 2d 838.

34 citing documents.

Patrick Williams v. University of Lafayette La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2020
3 Cir. 6/18/08), writs denied, 08-1635, 08-1640 (La.
Baltazar Ortiz v. Meadwestvaco Corporation La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
Ortiz v. Meadwestvaco Corp. 274 So. 3d 158 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
Pace Builders v. Westco Trucking & Contracting, LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
3 Cir. 6/18/08), writs denied, 08-1635, 08-1640 (La.
Carol J. Vincent v. Cse Federal Credit Union La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
3 Cir. 6/18/08), writs denied, 08-1635, 08-1640 (La.
Craig Driesse v. National Oilwell Varco, Lp La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
Driesse v. National Oil Well Yarco, LP 170 So. 3d 996 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
Hayes Fund for the 1st United Methodistchurch of Welsh, LLC v. Kerr-Mcgee Rocky Moutain, LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
3 Cir. 6/18/08), writs denied, 08-1635, 08-1640 (La.
Hayes Fund for First United Methodist Church of Welsh, LLC v. Kerr-McGee Rocky Mountain, LLC 149 So. 3d 280 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
3 Cir. 6/18/08) , , writs denied, 08-1635, 08-1640 (La.10/31/08), .
Beverly E. Ledet v. John J. Campo, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
3 Cir. 6/18/08), (citing Indep.
Rosaria D. Maya v. Priola Construction Corporation La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
3 Cir. 6/18/08), writs denied, 08-1635, 08-1640 (La.
Maya v. Priola Construction Corp. 128 So. 3d 1009 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
3 Cir. 6/18/08) , , writs denied, 08-1635, 08-1640 (La.10/31/08), , supported its position that it did not owe [sindemnity to Priola based on the language of the indemnity clause and Louisiana’s comparative fault law.
Edward D. Gutierrez v. David M. Baldridge La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
3 Cir. 6/18/08), writ denied, 08-1640 (La.
Gutierrez v. Baldridge 105 So. 3d 156 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
3 Cir. 6/18/08) , , unit denied, 08-1640 (La.10/31/08), .
Rodney Champagne, II v. American Alternative Insurance Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
3 Cir. 6/18/08), writs denied, 08-1635 and 08-1640 (La.
Moreno v. Entergy Corp. 79 So. 3d 406 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2011
3 Cir. 6/18/08) , , writ denied, 08-1635, 08-1640 (La.10/31/08), , citing Perkins v. Rubicon, Inc.
Kite Bros. LLC v. Alan Kite La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
3 Cir. 6/18/08), writs denied, 08-1634 and 08-1649 (La.10/31/08) this court explained the standard of review applicable to motions for summary judgment, stating: Appellate courts review a trial court‟s grant or denial of a motion for summary judgment using the de novo standard of review
Kite v. KITE BROS. 74 So. 3d 1266 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
3 Cir. 6/18/08), , writs denied, 08-1634 and 08-1649 (La.10/31/08) , this court explained the standard of review applicable to motions for summary judgment, stating: Appellate courts review a trial court’s grant or denial of a motion for summary judgment using the de novo standard of review, under the same criteria
Tim Wagner v. Inn of Lake Charles La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
3 Cir. 6/18/08), writ denied, 08-1635, 08-1640 (La.
Wagner v. Inn of Lake Charles 49 So. 3d 592 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
3 Cir. 6/18/08) , , writ denied, 08-1635, 08-1640 (La.10/31/08), ; Rashall v. Pennington, 08-1 (La.App.
Gunderson v. F.A. Richard & Associates 44 So. 3d 779 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
3 Cir. 6/18/08), , units denied, 08-1634 and 08-1649 (La.10/31/08) , this court explained the standard of review applicable to motions for summary judgment, stating: Appellate courts review a trial court’s grant or denial of a motion for summary judgment using the de novo standard of review, under the same criteria
Clark Gunderson, M.D. v. F. A. Richard & Associates, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
3 Cir. 6/18/08), writs denied, 08-1634 and 08-1649 (La.10/31/08) this court explained the standard of review applicable to motions for summary judgment, stating: Appellate courts review a trial court’s grant or denial of a motion for summary judgment using the de novo s
Frank J. Hayes, Jr. v. Burlington Resources Oil & Gas Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
3 Cir. 6/18/08), writ denied, 08-1635, 08-1640 (La.
Hayes v. BURLINGTON RESOURCES OIL & GAS CO. 34 So. 3d 1009 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
3 Cir. 6/18/08), , writ denied, 08-1635, 08-1640 (La.10/31/08), , this court explained the standard of review applicable to motions for summary judgment, stating: Appellate courts review a trial court’s grant or denial of a motion for summary *1012 judgment using the de novo standard of review, under the same criter
James Patrick Cluse D/B/A J. P. Cluse Construction v. H & E Equipment Services, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
App. 3 Cir. 6/18/08), writ denied, 08-1635 (La.
Cluse v. H & E Equipment Services, Inc. 34 So. 3d 959 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
3 Cir. 6/18/08) , , writ denied, 08-1635 (La.10/31/08), .
John Terrell Fruge v. Onob, Inc. D/B/A Century 21 Mike D. Bono & Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
3 Cir. 6/18/08), writs denied, 08-1634 and 08-1649 (La.
Fruge v. ONOB, INC. 32 So. 3d 1115 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
3 Cir. 6/18/08), , writs denied, 08-1634 and 08-1649 (La.10/31/08) , this court explained the standard of review applicable to motions for summary judgment, stating: Appellate courts review a trial court’s grant or denial of a motion for summary judgment using the de novo standard of review, under the same criteria
Yuma Exploration and Production Co. Inc. v. Mayne & Mertz, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
3 Cir. 6/18/08), writs denied, 08-1635, 08-1640 (La.
Mayne & Mertz, Inc. v. Sweet Lake Land & Oil Co. 28 So. 3d 1227 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
3 Cir. 6/18/08), , writs denied, 08-1635, 08-1640 (La.10/31/08), (citations omitted).
J'me Decker v. Cox Communications, La., LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
3 Cir. 6/16/08), writs denied, 08-1635, 08-1640 (La.
Decker v. COX COMMUNICATIONS LOUISIANA, LLC 27 So. 3d 998 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
3 Cir. 6/16/08), , writs denied, 08-1635, 08-1640 (La.10/31/08), , this court set forth the applicable standard of review: Questions of contractual interpretation are questions of law which are sub *1003 ject to a de novo standard of review.
Ferris Bonnet v. Lafayette Parish Sheriff La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
3 Cir. 6/18/08), writ denied, 08-1635, 08-1640 (La.10/31/08), stating: mental condition.
Bonnet v. Lafayette Parish Sheriff 2 So. 3d 1280 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
3 Cir. 6/18/08), , writ denied, 08-1635, 08-1640 (La.10/31/08), , stating: |4Appellate courts review a trial court’s grant or denial of a motion for summary judgment using the de novo standard of review, under the same criteria that govern the trial court’s consideration of whether a summary judgment is appropriate