DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Voisin v. Luke, 191 So. 2d 503.

27 citing documents.

  • Bayview Loan Servicing, L.L.C. v. Sedric Morris Wilson & Sevetri Monique Wilson La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2023
  • Indulge Island Grill, L.L.C. v. Island Grill, L.L.C. 220 So. 3d 154 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
    App. 2d Cir. 1983), “the function of a request for admission of facts remains as described in Voisin [v. Luke, , (1966) ].
  • Durden v. Durden 165 So. 3d 1131 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    4th Cir.1976) , -507 (1966).
  • Brodtmann v. Duke 803 So. 2d 41 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
    -06 , (1966) (footnote omitted; emphasis in original).
  • Tandy v. Pecan Shoppe of Minden, Inc. 785 So. 2d 111 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
    (1966), the Court considered verified exceptions as appropriate answers to a request for admissions.
  • Vardaman v. Baker Center, Inc. 711 So. 2d 727 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    (1966), which indicated that requests for admissions could not be applied to a controverted legal issue going to the heart of the merits of a case.
  • Louisiana NBOA Construction & Self Insurers Fund v. Liu 707 So. 2d 1002 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
    (1966), the Louisiana Supreme Court explained the purpose of La.C.C.P.
  • Bennett v. City of Lafayette 635 So. 2d 515 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
    (1966), the Louisiana Supreme Court explained the purpose of La.C.C.P.
  • Security Nat. Trust v. Kalmback 613 So. 2d 664 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
  • Davis v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp. 526 So. 2d 337 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
    However, plaintiffs' contend that the request for admissions procedure was inappropriate because it may not be applied to "a controverted legal issue lying at the heart of a case"
  • Jones v. Gillen 504 So. 2d 575 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1987
    (1966), the Court considered verified exceptions filed prior to the answer appropriate answers to the request.
  • Oby ex rel. George v. Champagne 451 So. 2d 674 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    The Supreme Court, , (1966), stated that the basic design of the Code of Civil Procedure is to insure justice to all parties as expeditiously as possible.
  • Hoskins v. Caplis 431 So. 2d 846 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
    However, , (1966), our Supreme Court explained: "According to the pronouncements of the federal courts, and those of other jurisdictions having similar statutes, this procedure is designed to expedite the trial of cases and reduce to a minimum the expense involved, although, unlike the pre-trial conference and th
  • O'REGAN v. Labat 379 So. 2d 78 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
    (1966); 8 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 2257 (1970); Finman, The Request for Admissions in Federal Civil Procedure, 71 Yale L.Rev.
  • Ball Marketing Enterprise v. Rainbow Tomato Co. 340 So. 2d 700 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
    (1966), explaining the intended scope of Article 1496: "[I]ts purpose is to eliminate the necessity of proving uncontroverted facts.
  • Succession of Rock v. Allstate Life Ins. Co. 340 So. 2d 1325 La. 1976
    (1966), that Article 1496 was not intended to be used to establish a controversial issue which constituted the crux of the matter in litigation.
  • Madden v. LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT CO., INC. 334 So. 2d 249 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1976
  • Succession of Rock v. Allstate Life Insurance Co. 329 So. 2d 862 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    the Supreme Court noted that the purpose of the statute is to require admission of matters which ought to be admitted, or which will not be disputed at trial in order to avoid the unnecessary utilization of time and expenditure of funds to establish such issues.
  • New Orleans Public Service, Inc. v. Checker Cab Co. 332 So. 2d 489 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1976
    109 , Hudson v. Maryland Cas.
  • Wesley v. Walgreen Co. 330 So. 2d 398 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
  • Entron, Inc. v. Callais Cablevision, Inc. 307 So. 2d 787 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
    this issue was dealt with in detail by the Supreme Court.
  • Entron, Inc. v. Callais Cablevision, Inc. 307 So. 2d 787 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
    this issue was dealt with in detail by the Supreme Court.
  • Nicholson v. Holloway Planting Company, Inc. 284 So. 2d 898 La. 1973
  • Vincent v. Lewis 275 So. 2d 414 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
    *416 796 , (1966), our Supreme Court held that: “ .
  • Hudson v. Maryland Casualty Co. 241 So. 2d 567 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
    (1966), it was said, with reference to the function of this article: “ * * * it is generally agreed its employment presupposes the requesting party knows the facts sought to be admitted and merely desires to ascertain and circumscribe the contested factual issues that are to be ultimately litigate
  • Trane Co. v. Bellevue Baptist Church of Metairie 233 So. 2d 13 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
    *15 The admissions of fact were not the sole basis for the court a quo’s judgment and therefore appellant Weathermas-ters’ argument that it should not be denied the right to a , (1966), and Champagne v. Marmande, La.App., (1st Cir.1964) is rejected.
  • Voisin v. Luke 203 So. 2d 916 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
    Defendant then sought writs from this court, , at page 507: “ * * * Certainly the innovation of the admission procedure should not be sanctioned as a device for entrapping or tricking a litigant into admitting himself out of court without a trial of the merits, or even of exceptions that, if tried, would reflect the plaintiff was without a right or