DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Cheramie Services, Inc. v. Shell Deepwater Production, Inc., 35 So. 3d 1053.

86 citing documents.

  • Guillory v. Broussard 190 So. 3d 486 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    or thing of value wherever situated, and includes any trade or commerce directly or indirectly affecting the people of the state.” In Cheramie Services, Inc. v. Shell Deepwater Prod., Inc., 09-1633 (La.4/23/10), , a'plurality opinion of the .supreme court, the .court held | lathát the court must look to “the words of the statute.[]” The plurality opinion went on the hold: The applicable theory of recovery before this court is provided in LUTPA.
  • Marie M. Coburn v. Janis Dixon La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
    See Luther v. IOM Company LLC, 13-0353 (La.10/15/13), Cheramie Services, Inc. v. Shell Deepwater Production, Inc., 09-1633 (La.4/23/10)
  • Coburn v. Dixon 190 So. 3d 816 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    See Luther v. IOM Company LLC, 13-0353 (La.10/15/13), ; Cheramie Services, Inc. v. Shell Deep-water Production, Inc. , 09-1633 (La.4/23/10), .'
  • Lewis v. Young 187 So. 3d 531 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    It is well established that affidavits with “conclusory ^allegations of fact which are devoid of specific facts are not sufficient to defeat summary judgment.” Cheramie Services, Inc. v. Shell Deepwater Production, Inc., 09-1633, p. 16 (La.4/23/10), ; see also Surcouf v. Darling, 15-0278, p. 14 (La.App.
  • Carroll Insulation & Window Co. v. Biomax Spray Foam Insulation, LLC 180 So. 3d 518 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
    This court has consistently held that in establishing a LUTPA claim, a plaintiff must show that “the alleged conduct offends established public policy and is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious.” Cheramie Services, Inc. v. Shell Deepwater Prod., 2009-1633, p. 11 (La.04/23/10), .
  • Surcouf v. Darling 177 So. 3d 1085 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    “[Affidavits with conclusory allegations of fact which are devoid of specific facts are not sufficient to defeat summary judgment.” Cheramie Services, Inc. v. Shell Deepwater Production, Inc., 09-1633, p. 16 (La.4/23/10), (internal citation omitted); see also Smith v. Casino New Orleans Casino, 12-0292, p. 11 (La.App.
  • Gandhi v. Sonal Furniture & Custom Draperies, L.L.C. 192 So. 3d 783 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
    Inc., 09-1633 (La.4/23/10), .
  • Cupp Drug Store, Inc. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Louisiana, Inc. 161 So. 3d 860 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
    Inc., 2009-1633, p. 10 (La.4/23/10), .
  • Roy Bufkin, Jr. v. Felipe's Louisiana, LLC 171 So. 3d 851 La. 2014
    See Luther v. IOM Company LLC, 13-0353 (La.10/15/13), ; Cheramie Services, Inc. v. Shell Deepwater Production, Inc., 09-1633 (La.4/23/10), .
  • Kenneth John Lecompte, Et Ux. v. Afc Enterprises, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
  • Prime Insurance Co. v. Imperial Fire & Casualty Insurance Co. 151 So. 3d 670 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    Inc. v. Shell Deepwater Production Inc., 09-1633, pp. 6-7 (La.4/23/10), .
  • Lecompte v. AFC Enterprises, Inc. 149 So. 3d 366 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    Inc. v. Shell Deepwater Prod., 09-1633 (La.4/23/10), .
  • Yana Anderson v. Ochsner Health System and Ochsner Clinic Foundation 172 So. 3d 579 La. 2014
    Cheramie Services, Inc. v. Shell Deepwater Production, Inc., 09-1633 (La.4/23/10), .
  • Quality Environmental Processes, Inc. v. I.P. Petroleum Co. 144 So. 3d 1011 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    This court has consistently held that in establishing a LUTPA claim, a plaintiff must show that “the alleged conduct offends established public policy and is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious.” Cheramie Services, Inc. v. Shell Deepwater Prod., 09-1633, p. 11 (La.4/23/10), .
  • Haygood v. Dies 127 So. 3d 1008 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
    Inc. v. Shell Deepwater Production Inc., 2009-1633 (La.4/23/10), .
  • Harp v. Autrey 121 So. 3d 1260 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
    Inc. v. Shell Deepwater Production Inc., 2009-1633 (La.4/23/10), .
  • Willis v. Brooks 119 So. 3d 890 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    See Cheramie Services, Inc. v. Shell Deepwater Production, Inc., 09-1633, p. 10 (La.4/23/10), .
  • Hurricane Fence Co. v. Jensen Metal Products, Inc. 119 So. 3d 683 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2013
    ctices and Consumer Protection Law, usually abbreviated as LUTPA, “grants a right of action to any person, natural or juridical, who suffers an ascertainable loss as a result of another person’s use of unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” Cheramie Servs., Inc. v. Shell Deepwater Prod., Inc., 2009-1633, p. 6 (La.4/23/10), .
  • Christakis v. Clipper Construction, L.L.C. 117 So. 3d 168 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    Cheramie Services, Inc. v. Shell Deepwater Production, Inc., 09-1633 (La.4/23/10), .
  • Zeigler v. Housing Authority of New Orleans 118 So. 3d 442 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    “LUTPA grants a right of action to any person, natural or juridical, who suffers an ascertainable loss as a result of another person’s use of unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any.trade or commerce.” Cheramie Services, Inc. v. Shell Deepwater Production, Inc., 09-1633, p. 6 (La.4/23/10), .
  • Hardy v. Easterling 113 So. 3d 1178 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
    Cheramie Servs., Inc. v. Shell Deepwater Prod., Inc., 09-1638 (La.04/23/10), .
  • Brown v. City of Monroe 103 So. 3d 486 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
    Inc., 2009-1633 (La.4/23/10), .
  • Tommie M. Granger, M.D. v. Christus Health Central Louisiana D/B/A Christus St. Francis Cabrini Hospital La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
    4/23/10), wherein three justices accepted the first circuit‘s position, one concurred in the result of the opinion only without comment, and two concurred in the result of the opinion with reasons wherein they rejected an expansion of the LUPTA standing issue past the position of this court.18 Justice Weimer, in writing fo
  • Granger v. Christus Health Central Louisiana 97 So. 3d 604 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    In an apparent effort to resolve the conflict between the circuits, 17 our supreme court has issued a plurality opinion in Cheramie Services, Inc. v. Shell Deepwater Production, Inc., 09-1633 (La.4/23/10), , wherein three justices accepted the first circuit’s position, one concurred in the result of the opinion only without comment, and two concurred in the result of the opinion with reasons wherein they rejected an expansion of the LUTPA standing issue past the position of this court.
  • Brown v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 93 So. 3d 697 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
    art. 967(B); Cheramie Services, Inc. v. Shell Deepwater Production, Inc., 2009-1633 (La.4/23/10), .
  • Ryan v. Esif/Ryan Construction 88 So. 3d 719 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
    Inc. v. Shell Deepwater Prod., Inc., 2009-1633 (La.4/23/10), .
  • Nola 180 v. Treasure Chest Casino, LLC 91 So. 3d 446 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    More recently, however, the Louisiana Supreme Court expanded LUTPA to grant a right of action to “any person, natural or juridical, who suffers an ascertainable loss as a result of another person’s use of unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” Cheramie Serv., Inc. v. Shell Deepwater Prod., Inc., 09-1633, p. 6 (La.4/23/10), .
  • Bates v. Louisiana National Guard Armory 86 So. 3d 21 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
    Inc., 2009-1633 (La.4/23/10), .
  • Bogues v. Louisiana Energy Consultants, Inc. 71 So. 3d 1128 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
    The supreme court has recently interpreted and explained the right of action, or standing, to recover for violations of LUTPA in Cheramie Services, Inc. v. Shell Deepwater Production, Inc., 09-1633 (La.4/23/10), .
  • Thomas Rhymes v. Winn Dixie Store, Sedgwick Claims La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    4/23/10), (emphasis added).
  • Neumin Production Co. v. Tiger Bend, Ltd. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
  • Neumin Production Co. v. Tiger Bend, Ltd. 58 So. 3d 1088 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    “Once the motion for summary judgment has been properly supported by the moving party, the failure of the non-moving party to produce evidence of a material factual dispute mandates the granting of the motion.” Cheramie Servs., Inc. v. Shell Deepwater Prod., Inc., 09-1633, pp. 9-10 (La.4/23/10), .
  • Rhymes v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc. 58 So. 3d 1068 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    “Once the motion for summary judgment has been properly supported by the moving party, the failure of the non-moving party to produce evidence of a material factual dispute mandates the granting of the motion.” Cheramie Servs., Inc. v. Shell Deepwater Prod., Inc., 09-1633, p. 9-10 (La.4/23/10), (emphasis added).
  • Andrew Cox v. Extreme Real Estate, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
    4/23/10), (citing Hardy v. Bowie, 98-2821 (La.
  • Cox v. Extreme Real Estate, Inc. 54 So. 3d 137 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    “Once the motion for summary judgment has been properly supported by the moving party, the failure of the non-moving party to produce evidence of a material factual dispute mandates the granting of the motion.” Cheramie Servs., Inc. v. Shell Deepwater Prod., Inc., 09-1633, pp. 9-10 (La.4/23/10), (citing Hardy v. Bowie, 98-2821 (La.9/8/99), ).
  • Katina Maria Guidry v. Glazer's Distributors of Louisiana, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010