Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Miller v. Conagra, Inc., 991 So. 2d 445.

24 citing documents.

St. Charles Surgical Hospital, L.L.C. v. Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity D/B/A Blue Cross Blue Shield of Louisiana, … La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2026
9/8/08), (citing New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 749-50 (2001)).26 The “circumstances under which judicial estoppel may appropriately be invoked are probably not reducible to any general formulation of principle” and “[a]dditional considerations may inform the doctrine’s application in specific factual contexts.
In Re: Marshall Legacy Foundation La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2024
Rachel Breaux v. Louisiana Stadium & Exposition District, Smg, Landmark Event Staffing Services, Inc., and Jane Doe La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2024
Florence Gonsoulin and Howard Champagne v. Sammy Broussard, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
Newtek Small Business Finance, LLC as successor in interest by merger to Newtek Small Business Finance, Inc. v. … La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2022
9/8/08), ); see also New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 749-50, 121 S.Ct.
Donald Hodge, Jr. v. Jared Oertling La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
Shop Rite, Inc. v. Shawne Gielen Gardiner La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2021
Barkerding v. Whittaker 263 So. 3d 1170 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
9/8/08), ,] not only did the court fail to address the more difficult question of whether a continuing tort can suspend a one-year peremptive period, it also turned back the clock several decades when it neglected well-settled Louisiana state court jurisprudence holding that LUTPA's one-year period is preemptive" and suggestin
Elizabeth Webb v. Daniel Andrew Webb 263 So. 3d 321 La. 2018
9/8/08), (citing New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 749-50 (2001)).
Tates v. Integrated Prod. Servs., Inc. 244 So. 3d 716 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2017
George Raymond Williams, M.D. v. Sif Consultants of Louisiana, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
In Miller v. Conagra, Inc., 08-21 (La.9/8/08), our Louisiana Supreme Court stated: [T]he Supreme Court of the United States has generally described judicial estoppel as an equitable doctrine designed to protect the integrity of the judicial process by prohibiting parties from deliberately changing
Williams v. SIF Consultants of Louisiana, Inc. 209 So. 3d 903 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
9/8/08), , our Louisiana.Supreme Court stated: [T]he Supreme Court of the United States has generally described judicial estoppel as an equitable doctrine designed to protect the integrity of the judicial process by .prohibiting parties from deliberately changing positions according to the exigencies of the moment.
Volentine v. Raeford Farms of Louisiana, LLC 201 So. 3d 325 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
Cf. Miller v. Conagra, Inc., 08-0021 (La.9/8/08), .
Thomas v. Economy Premier Assurance Co. 196 So. 3d 7 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
The only Louisiana Supreme Court case to discuss judicial estoppel in the context of a bankruptcy proceeding is Miller v. Conagra, Inc., 2008-0021 (La.9/8/08), .
Laviolette v. DuBose 167 So. 3d 145 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2014
Miller v. ConAgra, Inc., 08-21 (La.9/8/08); .
Volentine v. Raeford Farms of Louisiana, L.L.C. 121 So. 3d 742 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
Cf. Miller v. Conagra, Inc., 08-0021 (La.9/8/08), .
Chimneywood Homeowners Ass'n v. Eagan Insurance Agency, Inc. 57 So. 3d 1142 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
See Miller v. Conagra, Inc., 08-0021, p. 9 (La.9/8/08), (recognizing that “the Supreme Court of the United States has generally described judicial es-toppel as an equitable doctrine designed to protect the integrity of the judicial process by prohibiting parties from deliberately changing positions according to the exigencies of the moment.”)(citing New Hampshire v. M
Regions Bank v. Weber 53 So. 3d 1284 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Miller v. Conagra, Inc., 08-0021, p. 9 (La.9/8/08), .
Kenneth Duplechain v. Firooz Jalili La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
Duplechain v. Jalili 52 So. 3d 1072 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
3 Cir. 12/5/07) , , ‘writ granted, 08-21 (La.3/7/08), , affirmed in part, reversed in part, 08-21 (La.9/8/08), .
State of Louisiana in the Interest of A.L. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
9/8/08), our Louisiana Supreme Court stated: [T]he Supreme Court of the United States has generally described judicial estoppel as an equitable doctrine designed to protect the integrity of the judicial process by prohibiting parties from deliberately changing positions
State Ex Rel. Al 34 So. 3d 416 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
In Miller v. Conagra, Inc., 08-21 (La.9/8/08), , our Louisiana Supreme Court stated: [T]he Supreme Court of the United States has generally described judicial estoppel as an equitable doctrine designed to protect the integrity of the judicial process by prohibiting parties from deliberately changing positions according to the exigencies of the moment.
State ex rel. A.L. 34 So. 3d 416 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
In Miller v. Conagra, Inc., 08-21 (La.9/8/08), , our Louisiana Supreme Court stated: [T]he Supreme Court of the United States has generally described judicial estoppel as an equitable doctrine designed to protect the integrity of the judicial process by prohibiting parties from deliberately changing positions according to the exigencies of the moment.
Applying for Intrafamily Adoption of L.M.C. 39 So. 3d 643 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Miller v. Conagra, Inc., 08-0021 (La.9/8/08), .