DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Kay v. Carter, 150 So. 2d 27.

185 citing documents.

  • Burrus v. Guest House of Opelousas, Inc. 195 So. 2d 173 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
  • Dugas v. Continental Casualty Co. 191 So. 2d 642 La. 1966
    (1963) we held that it was proper to resort to federal authorities in construing our procedural statutes which are based upon federal procedural statutes.
  • Wright v. Harbor 188 So. 2d 449 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
    Article 966; , .” After carefully reviewing the record in the instant case, we are of the opinion that there are no material issues of fact, and that the issues involved herein are solely matters of law.
  • Hibbert v. Mudd 187 So. 2d 503 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1966
    Kay v. Carter, et al., , ; (3rd Cir. La.App.1965); Acadia-Vermilion Rice Irrigating Company, (3rd Cir. La.App., 1966); Brown v. B & G Crane Service, Inc., (4th Cir.).
  • Roy & Roy v. Riddle 187 So. 2d 492 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1966
    See: , ; Smith v. Preferred Risk Mutual Ins.
  • Broussard v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. 188 So. 2d 111 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1966
  • Delta Equipment and Constr. Co. v. Royal Indem. Co. 186 So. 2d 454 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
  • Smith v. Preferred Risk Mutual Insurance Company 185 So. 2d 857 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1966
    our Supreme Court held that one who moves for summary judgment has the burden of demonstrating clearly the absence of any genuine issue of fact, with any doubt as to the existence of such an issue being resolved against the movant.
  • Acadia-Vermilion Rice Irrigating Co. v. Broussard 185 So. 2d 908 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1966
    See: , ; Smith v. Preferred Risk Mutual Ins.
  • Prentice v. Amax Petroleum Corp. 187 So. 2d 752 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
    1965) ; Kay v. Carter (1963) , ; Wilkinson v. Husser (La.App.
  • O. L. Sims Co. of Louisiana v. International Engineers, Inc. 181 So. 2d 436 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
    Kay v. Carter (1963) , ; Wilkinson v. Husser (1963) La.App., ; Touchet v. Firemen’s Insurance Co. of Newark, N. J. (1962) La.App., ; Gym Master Company v. Pool (1963) La.App., 157 So,2d 738, and the authorities therein cited.
  • Lindsey v. Escude 179 So. 2d 505 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1965
    Simon v. Castille, La.App.
  • Aymond v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Company 179 So. 2d 460 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1965
    3 Cir., ; , ; Ellis v. Johnson Lumber Company, Inc., La.App.
  • Simon v. Castille 174 So. 2d 660 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1965
    (1963) holds we are justified in considering the jurisprudence of Federal Courts where we have not yet developed our own jurisprudence on procedural statutes having Federal Rules as their source.
  • Cheramie v. Louisiana Power & Light Company 176 So. 2d 209 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1965
    "In Kay v. Carter, [ , ] supra, our Supreme Court observed (in line with what we perceive to be established Federal jurisprudence), that the purpose of permitting a trial court's examination of material extraneous to the pleadings in disposing of a motion for summary judgment is not that of trying or resolving a factual issue
  • Brandt Glass Co. v. Trinity Universal Insurance 172 So. 2d 744 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
    Art. 966; , ; Grant v. Touro Infirmary, La.App., ; Wilkinson v. Husser, La.App., .
  • Grant v. Touro Infirmary 169 So. 2d 574 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1964
  • Burrell v. Baton Rouge Securities Co. 169 So. 2d 668 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
    procedure is intended to permit a party to pierce the allegations of fact in the pleading and to obtain relief where facts set forth in detail in affidavits, depositions and admissions on file show that there are no genuine issues of fact to be tried.” This Court in the recent case Texas Gulf Producing Company v. Gulf Coast Drilling and Exploration, Inc., , held as follows: “ ‘The proceeding authorized in Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure, Article 966 ct seq.
  • Manuel v. Liberty Mutual Insurance 166 So. 2d 13 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
    [1095], (Docket No. 46,341, decided February 18, 1963); also: Ellis v. Johnson Lumber Co., Inc., La.App.
  • Emonet v. Tomlinson 163 So. 2d 382 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
  • Richie v. Chaudoir 163 So. 2d 371 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
    [1095], (Docket No. 46,-341, decided February 18, 1963); also : Ellis v. Johnson Lumber Co., Inc., La.App., 3 Cir., ; McDonald v. Grande Corporation, La.
  • Thomas v. Fromherz Engineers 159 So. 2d 612 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
    Wilkinson v. Husser, La.App., ; Vallier v. Aetna Finance Company, La.App., ; , ; McDonald v. Grande Corporation, La.App., ; Freyou v. Marquette Casualty Company, La.App., .
  • Pesson Plumbing & Heating Co. v. Hammonds 160 So. 2d 769 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
    “not all seeming defects render a title unmerchantable, especially those based on objections which are obviously groundless; it is when there are outstanding rights in third persons (not parties to the action) who might thereafter make claims of a substantial nature against the property, and hence
  • Boothe v. Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York 161 So. 2d 293 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1964
    Thus, , (1963), the Supreme Court, with Chief Justice Fournet dissenting, reversed the trial court and Court of Appeal, granting summary judgment in favor of the purchaser of certain realty.
  • Joseph v. Greater New Guide Baptist Church, Inc. 159 So. 2d 556 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
    See Wilkinson v. Husser, La.App., ; , .
  • Perry v. Reliance Insurance Co. of Philadelphia 157 So. 2d 903 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
  • Gym Master Co. v. Pool 157 So. 2d 738 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
    2 Cir. 1962), ; Kay v. Carter, (1963), , ; Ellis v. Johnson Lumber Co. Inc. (La.App.
  • Shird v. Maricle 156 So. 2d 476 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1963
    Vallier v. Aetna Finance Co., La.App.
  • Duplechain v. Houston Fire & Casualty Insurance Co. 155 So. 2d 459 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1963
  • Wilkinson v. Husser 154 So. 2d 490 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
  • Texas Gulf Producing Co. v. Gulf Coast Drilling & Exploration, Inc. 154 So. 2d 559 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
    Article 966 under which this proceeding was brought, reads as follows: “ * * * The judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to material fact, and that mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” , : “The proceeding authorized in Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure, Article 966 et seq.
  • Ellis v. Johnson Lumber Company 150 So. 2d 838 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1963
    It is apparent that he did not have the benefit of the very recent case of Kay v. Carter, et al., La., .
  • Townsend v. Peerless Insurance 153 So. 2d 520 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
    verns the procedure in a motion for summary judgment and just as specifically and definitely states the judgment shall be rendered forthwith “if the pleadings, depositions, and ad *525 missions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to material fact, and that mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” In the recent case of Kay v. Carter, La., , the Supreme Court of Louisiana, in considering the judgment rendered on a motion for summary judgm
  • Dowden v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company 151 So. 2d 697 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1963
    as well as the several court of appeal decisions cited in our recent opinion in Ellis v. Johnson Lumber Company, Inc., (3rd Cir. La.App.1963) establishing a very strict interpretation of the requirement in LSA-C.C.P.
  • Vallier v. Aetna Finance Company 152 So. 2d 112 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1963
    See especially Kay v. Carter, La., (Docket No. 46,341, decided February 18, 1963); also: Ellis v. Johnson Lumber Co., Inc., La.App.