DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Boykin v. PPG Industries, Inc., 994 So. 2d 537.

30 citing documents.

  • Patrick Williams v. University of Lafayette La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2020
    10/31/08), (citing Perkins v. Rubicon, Inc., ).
  • Pace Builders v. Westco Trucking & Contracting, LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
  • Carol J. Vincent v. Cse Federal Credit Union La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
    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 that govern the trial court’s consideration
  • Hayes Fund for the 1st United Methodistchurch of Welsh, LLC v. Kerr-Mcgee Rocky Moutain, LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
  • 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
  • Rosaria D. Maya v. Priola Construction Corporation La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    10/31/08), supported its position that it did not owe 2 indemnity to Priola based on the language of the indemnity clause and Louisiana’s comparative fault law.
  • 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
  • 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
    10/31/08) (citing Indep.
  • 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, under the same criteria that govern the trial court‟s consideration
  • 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 that govern the trial court’s consideration of whether a summary judg
  • Tim Wagner v. Inn of Lake Charles La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
    10/31/08), Rashall v. Pennington, 08-1 (La.App.
  • 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 that govern the trial court’s consideration of whether a summary judg
  • 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 standard of review, under the same criteria that govern the tr
  • Frank J. Hayes, Jr. v. Burlington Resources Oil & Gas Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
    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 that govern the trial court’s consideration
  • 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 criteria that govern the trial court’s consideration of whether a summar
  • James Patrick Cluse D/B/A J. P. Cluse Construction v. H & E Equipment Services, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
  • 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
    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 that govern the trial court’s consideration
  • 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 that govern the trial court’s consideration of whether a summary judg
  • Yuma Exploration and Production Co. Inc. v. Mayne & Mertz, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
    10/31/08), (citations omitted).
  • 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
    10/31/08), this court set forth the applicable standard of review: Questions of contractual interpretation are questions of law which are subject to a de novo standard of review.
  • 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 in any given case.