Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Arceneaux v. Amstar Corp., 66 So. 3d 438.

44 citing documents.

Sheraunte McKinley v. William M. McKinley La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2025
7/ 1/ 11), ( trial court and appellate court are bound by law of the case); Spears v. Mid-America Dairymen, Inc., 2001- 0978 ( La.
Wade Thompson v. Ivy J. Hebert, Jr. & Axis Surplus Insurance Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2023
7/1/11), -51, for the principle that “[w]aiver occurs when there is an existing right, a knowledge of its existence and an actual intention to relinquish it or conduct so inconsistent with the intent to enforce the right as to induce a reasonable belief that it has been relinquished.” Mr. Thompson also cites Breaux v.
Timothy D. Koehl Versus Rli Insurance Company, Geico General Insurance Company, Packard Truck Lines, L.L.C., and Robert T. … La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2023
Assumption Parish Police Jury v. Texas Brine Company, LLC La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2022
Cox, Cox, Filo, Camel & Wilson, Llc v. Louisiana Workers' Compensation Corporation La. 2022
Opelousas General Hospital Authority, a Public Trust v. Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Company D/B/A Blue cross/blue Shield … La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
7/1/11), (emphasis added), in which the supreme court discussed the law of the case doctrine as follows: The law of the case refers to a policy by which the court will not reconsider prior rulings in the same case.
Pat Cooper v. Lafayette Parish School Board La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
7/1/11), the supreme court explained the law of the case doctrine, stating: The law of the case refers to a policy by which the court will not reconsider prior rulings in the same case.
Matthew Lacas v. Monroe Credit, LLC, Willys Gerald, Patrick Herring, and Richard W. Huye, Jr. La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2021
Teresa Jeffries v. Prime Insurance Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2021
7/1/11), (quoting Tate v. Charles Aguillard Ins.
Mary Ortega v. Cantu Services, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
7/1/11), the supreme court stated: The law of the case refers to a policy by which the court will not reconsider prior rulings in the same case.
Baltazar Ortiz v. Meadwestvaco Corporation La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
7/1/11), or (2) the insurer “denies coverage where there is coverage, or unjustifiably delays settlement, forcing the insured to settle separately.” Emile M. Babst Co., Inc. v. Nichols Constr.
Ortiz v. Meadwestvaco Corp. 274 So. 3d 158 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
7/1/11), , 452 ; or (2) the insurer "denies coverage where there is coverage, or unjustifiably delays settlement, forcing the insured to settle separately."
Jacobs v. Geico Indem. Co. 256 So. 3d 449 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2018
7/1/11), ; Mayfield v. Reed , 43,226 (La.
Fie, LLC v. New Jax Condo Ass'n, Inc. 241 So. 3d 372 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
Crosstex Energy Servs., LP v. Tex. Brine Co. 240 So. 3d 1024 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
Crosstex Energy Servs., LP v. Tex. Brine Co. 240 So. 3d 932 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
In Re: Eleanor Pierce (Marshall) Stevens Living Trust and Eleanor Pierce Stevens Revocable Gift Trust La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
7/1/11), (quoting Petition of Sewerage and Water Bd.
In re Eleanor Pierce (Marshall) Stevens Living Trust 229 So. 3d 36 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
7/1/11), (quoting Petition of Sewerage and Water Bd.
Dusty Collette v. Danielle W. Allen La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
Collette v. Allen 210 So. 3d 373 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
Southern Trace Property Owners Ass'n v. Williams 210 So. 3d 835 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
7/1/11), ; J-W Operating Co. v. Olsen, supra.
In re B.J.C. Applying for Intrafamily Adoption 206 So. 3d 337 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
7/1/11), ; J-W Operating Co. v. Olsen, 49,925 (La.App: 2 Cir. 6/24/15), .
Daniel Arceneaux, Louis Daverede, Jr., Vives Lemmon and Jules Menesses v. Amstar Corp., Amstar Sugar Corp., Tate and … 200 So. 3d 277 La. 2016
7/1/11), (“Arceneaux III”).
Rountree v. Forsythe Holdings, Inc. 196 So. 3d 52 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
Id.; Arceneaux v. Amstar Corp., 10-2329 (La.7/1/11), .
Correro v. Ferrer 188 So. 3d 316 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
Id.; Arceneaux v. Amstar Corp., 10-2329 (La.7/1/11), .
Kevin W. Jones, Sr. v. Town of Woodworth La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
7/1/11), the supreme court succinctly discussed the policy and principles applicable to the law of the case doctrine and stated: The law of the case refers to a policy by which the court will not reconsider prior rulings in the same case.
Jones v. Town of Woodworth 178 So. 3d 243 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
Aswe indicated earlier in this opinion, that-issue was decided in Jones I and is now the “law .of the case,” 'In Arceneaux v. Amstar Corp., 10-2329, p. 14 (La.7/1/11), , the supreme court- succinctly discussed the policy and principles applicable to the law of the case doctrine and stated: The law of the case refers to a policy by which the court will not reconsider prior rulings in the same case.
J-W Operating Co. v. Olsen 167 So. 3d 1123 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
Id.; Arceneaux v. Amstar Corp., 10-2829 (La.7/1/11), .
Kacie Renee Spears v. Shelter Mutual Insurance Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
Spears v. Shelter Mutual Insurance Co. 160 So. 3d 631 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
Arceneaux v. Amstar Corp., 10-2329, p. 17 (La.7/1/11), .
Explained Rhonda B. Hickey v. Allstate Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
7/1/11), the supreme court once again addressed the issue of an insurer’s duty to defend its insured: “the insurer’s obligation to defend suits against its insured is broader than its liability for damage claims.” “The insurer’s duty to
Explained Hickey v. Allstate Ins. Co. 159 So. 3d 1167 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
Duty to Defend In Arceneaux v. Amstar Corp., 10-2329, p. 9 (La.7/1/11), , the supreme court once again addressed the issue of an insurer’s duty to defend its insured: “the insurer’s obligation to defend suits against its insured is broader than its liability for damage claims.” “The insurer’s duty to defend suits brought
Arceneaux v. Amstar Corp. 161 So. 3d 115 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
4 Cir. 12/14/05) , (hereinafter referred to as “Ar-ceneaux I ”); Arceneaux v. Amstar Corp., 2006-1592 (La.App, 4 Cir. 10/31/07), (hereinafter referred to as “Ar-ceneaux II”); and Arceneaux v. Amstar Corp., 2010-2329 (La.7/1/11), (hereinafter referred to as “Arceneaux III”).
Samuel R. Breaux, II v. Cozy Cottages, LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
7/1/11), (citing Arceneaux v. Amstar Corp., 06-1592 (La.
Breaux v. Cozy Cottages, LLC 151 So. 3d 183 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
An insured may “assume and manage its own defense.” Arceneaux v. Amstar Carp., 10-2329, p. 19 (La.7/1/11), (citing Arceneaux v. Amstar Corp., 06-1592 (La.App.
Starkey v. Starkey 122 So. 3d 579 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
See Arceneaux v. Amstar Corp., 10-2329, p. 14 (La.7/1/11), .
Dwayne Olivier v. City of Eunice La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
Olivier v. City of Eunice 92 So. 3d 630 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Arceneaux v. Amstar Corp., 10-2329 (La.7/1/11), .
Johnson v. Orleans Parish School Board 90 So. 3d 389 La. 2012
See Arceneaux v. Amstar Corp., 10-2329 (La.7/1/11), ; Norfolk S. Corp. v. California Union Ins.
Johnson v. Orleans Parish School Board 90 So. 3d 390 La. 2012
See Arceneaux v. Amstar Corp., 10-2329 (La.7/1/11), ; Norfolk S. Corp. v. California Union Ins.
Carter Enterprises, LLC v. Scott Equipment Co. 91 So. 3d 1134 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
See Arceneaux v. Amstar Corporation, 2010-2329 (La.7/1/11), .
Monlezun v. Lyon Interests, Inc. 76 So. 3d 628 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
nd that the language of the 2008 corporate resolution and the commercial security agreement “both indicate a ‘continuing’ guaranty agreement, and by its clear language, |nthe guaranty cannot be *637 limited as only providing security for the promissory note of April 2008.” The supreme court recently reiterated the “law of the case” doctrine in Arceneaux v. Amstar Corp., 10-2829, p. 7 (La.7/1/11), (citations omitted), stating: The law of the case refers to a policy by which the court will not rec
Explained Hayes v. Rotolo 77 So. 3d 76 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
Our supreme court recently addressed the insurer’s duty to defend in Arceneaux v. Amstar Corp., 10-2329, p. 9 (La.7/1/11), : “the insurer’s obligation to defend suits against its insured is broader than its liability for damage claims.” “The insurer’s duty to defend suits brought against its insured is determined by the allegations of the injured plaintiffs petition, with the
LOUTRE LAND AND TIMBER CO. v. Roberts 72 So. 3d 403 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
We further note that under the recent ruling in Arceneanx v. Amstar, 10-2329 (La.7/1/11), , the total amount of attorney fees expended in complex litigation may not always be awarded in their entirety if the statutory claim imposing an attorney fee award applies only to a small portion of the litigation.