Roderick Mitchell v. Jolee Chambers, State Farm Automobile Insurance Company, Henry Horton, And Foremost Insurance Company Grand Rapids, Michigan
Roderick Mitchell v. Jolee Chambers, State Farm Automobile Insurance Company, Henry Horton, And Foremost Insurance Company Grand Rapids, Michigan, No. 2024-C-01526 (La. Feb. 25, 2025).
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- 345 So. 3d 422 not in our corpus
Opinion text
Supreme Court of Louisiana
February 25, 2025
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
RODERICK MITCHELL
VS.
JOLEE CHAMBERS, STATE FARM
AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY,
HENRY HORTON, AND FOREMOST
INSURANCE COMPANY GRAND
RAPIDS, MICHIGAN
No. 2024-C-01526
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: Roderick Mitchell - Applicant Plaintiff; Applying For Writ Of Certiorari,
Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Number(s) 638,951, Court of Appeal,
Second Circuit, Number(s) 55,949-CA;
_ _ _ _ _ _
February 25, 2025
Writ application granted. See per curiam.
JBM
JLW
JDH
JTK
WJC
PDG
JMG
02/25/2025 "See News Release 007 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No. 2024-C-01526
RODERICK MITCHELL
VS.
JOLEE CHAMBERS, STATE FARM AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE
COMPANY, HENRY HORTON, and FOREMOST INSURANCE
COMPANY GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN
On Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of Caddo
PER CURIAM.
Writ granted. The lower courts improperly weighed the evidence to determine
that the accident was caused solely by the fault of Jolee Chambers. See King v. Town
of Clarks, p. 2 (La. 2/22/22), 345 So. 3d 422, 423 (“It is not the function of the trial
court on a motion for summary judgment to determine, or even inquire into, the
merits of issues raised, or to weigh conflicting evidence of material fact. Rather, the
court must view the record and all reasonable inferences to be drawn from it in the
light most favorable to the nonmoving party… Specifically, any doubt as to a dispute
regarding a material issue of fact must be resolved against granting the motion and
in favor of trial on the merits.”). Because genuine issues of material fact remain,
summary judgment should not have been granted. The lower courts’ judgments are
vacated and this matter is remanded to the trial court.