Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Knowles v. McCright's Pharmacy, Inc., 785 So. 2d 101.

35 citing documents.

Brigid A. Connell and Kenneth D. Goforth versus Richwood Gardens, Inc., Keith A. McGough, State Farm Mutual Automobile … La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2025
Crescent City Property Redevelopment Association, LLC D/B/A Crescent City Property Services and Crescent City Property Redevelopment Services, Inc. … La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2025
Tomlinson v. Landmark American Insurance Co. 192 So. 3d 153 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
M.R. Pittman Group, L.L.C. v. Plaquemines Parish Government 182 So. 3d 312 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
Alberes v. Anco Insulations, Inc. 156 So. 3d 795 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Duckett v. Grambling State University 92 So. 3d 478 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
Willis v. Medders, 00-2507 (La.12/8/00), ; Knowles v. McCright’s Pharmacy, Inc., 34,559 (La.App.2d Cir.4/4/01), .
Ebarb v. Matlock 69 So. 3d 516 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
Hardy v. Bowie, supra; Smith v. Our Lady of the Lake Hosp., Inc., 93-2512 (La.7/5/94), ; Knowles v. McCright’s Pharmacy, Inc., 34,559 (La.App.2d Cir.4/4/01), .
Lucas v. Hopeman Bros., Inc. 60 So. 3d 690 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
Argonaut Great Central Insurance v. Hammett 13 So. 3d 1209 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
McAskill v. American Marine Holding Co. 9 So. 3d 264 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Thibodeaux v. Asbestos Corp. 976 So. 2d 859 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
Grant v. American Sugar Refining, Inc. 952 So. 2d 746 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2007
Sharp v. Parkview Care Center, Inc. 940 So. 2d 724 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
Hays v. Christus Schumpert Northern Louisiana 939 So. 2d 543 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
Amos v. LOUISIANA MEDICAL MUT. INS. CO. 936 So. 2d 875 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
Van Moreau v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Moreau v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe 919 So. 2d 862 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
Miller v. Entergy Services, Inc. 913 So. 2d 143 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
Thomas v. North 40 Land Development, Inc. 894 So. 2d 1160 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
"`Despite the legislative mandate that summary judgments are now favored, factual inferences reasonably drawn from the evidence must be construed in favor of the party opposing the motion and all doubt must be resolved in the opponent's favor.'" Wood , XXXX-XXXX at p. 7, 840 So.2d at 1228 (quoting Knowles v. McCright's Pharmacy, Inc., 34,559, p. 3 (La.App.2d Cir.4/4/01), ).
Argonaut Great Cent. Ins. Co. v. Hammett 887 So. 2d 704 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
Co. v. Sunbeam Corp., 99-2181, 99-2257 (La.2/29/00), ; Knowles v. McCright's Pharmacy, Inc., 34,559 (La.App.2d Cir.4/4/01), .
Gertler v. City of New Orleans 881 So. 2d 792 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
Ricky Lagrange v. Dynamic Industries, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
2 Cir. 4/4/01), the court discussed the role of the trial court in considering the merits of a motion for summary judgment: Despite the legislative mandate that summary judgments are now favored, factual inferences reasonably drawn from the evidence must be construed in favor of the party opposing
Lagrange v. Dynamic Industries, Inc. 875 So. 2d 1059 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
2 Cir. 4/4/01), , the court discussed the role of the trial court in considering the merits of a motion for summary judgment: Despite the legislative mandate that summary judgments are now favored, factual inferences reasonably drawn from the evidence must be construed in favor of the party opposing the motion and all doubt must
Jefferson v. Cooper/T. Smith Corp. 858 So. 2d 691 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
2 Cir. 4/4/01), , the Court stated: Despite the legislative mandate that summary judgments are now favored, factual inferences reasonably drawn from the evidence must be construed in favor of the party opposing the motion and all doubt must be resolved in the opponent's favor.
Lazard v. Foti 859 So. 2d 656 La. 2003
Berthelot v. Avondale Industries, Inc. 841 So. 2d 91 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
2 Cir. 4/4/01), , the Court stated: *93 Despite the legislative mandate that summary judgments are now favored, factual inferences reasonably drawn from the evidence must be construed in favor of the party opposing the motion and all doubt must be resolved in the opponent's favor.
Wood v. Becnel 840 So. 2d 1225 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
2 Cir. 4/4/01), , the Court stated: Despite the legislative mandate that summary judgments are now favored, factual inferences reasonably drawn from the evidence must be construed in favor of the party opposing the motion and all doubt must be resolved in the opponent’s favor.
Williams v. Storms 835 So. 2d 755 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
Johnson v. Entergy Corp. 827 So. 2d 1234 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
Florane v. Pendleton Memorial Methodist Hospital 822 So. 2d 642 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
Row v. Pierremont Plaza, LLC 814 So. 2d 124 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
Co. v. Sunbeam Corp., 99-2181, 99-2257 (La.2/29/00), ; Knowles v. McCright's Pharmacy, Inc., 34,559 (La.App.2d Cir.4/4/01), .
Wiltheis v. Pennington 813 So. 2d 1209 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
Knowles v. McCright’s Pharmacy, Inc., 34,559 (La.App.2d Cir.04/04/01), .
Explained Brantley v. State Farm Ins. Co. 799 So. 2d 638 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
In Knowles v. McCright's Pharmacy, Inc., 34,559 (La.App.2d Cir.4/4/01), , we explained the consideration given to competing evidence in summary judgment procedure: Despite the legislative mandate that summary judgments are now favored, factual inferences reasonably drawn from the evidence must be construed in favor of the party opposing the motion and all doubt must be resolved in the opp
Davis v. American Heritage Life Ins. Co. 799 So. 2d 705 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
art. 966(A)(2); Knowles v. McCright's Pharmacy, Inc., 34,559 (La.App.2d Cir.04/04/01), ; Robinson v. Brookshires No. 26, 33,713 (La.App.2d Cir.08/25/00), ; Lee v. Wall, 31,468 (La.App.2d Cir.01/20/99), .
King v. Career Training Specialists, Inc. 795 So. 2d 1223 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
App. 2d Cir.4/4/01), , this court explained the purpose and review of motions for summary judgment: Summary judgment procedure is designed to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action except those disallowed by law.