Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Sonnier v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, 248 So. 2d 299.

40 citing documents.

Jacques Dodson, Sr. v. Scott O. Brame, First Fidelity Mortgage d/b/a Southern Funding Mortgage, James Reichman ABC Insurance … La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2022
Toshula Carr v. City of Baton Rouge, Parish of East Baton Rouge Department of Public Works and Dwight … La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
Haygood v. Haygood 264 So. 3d 1226 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2019
Melancon v. Russell 258 So. 3d 955 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
Gregory Scarborough v. Tonya D. Scarborough La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
Jacqueline J. Gaspard v. Horace Mann Insurance Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
Gaspard v. Horace Mann Ins. Co. 247 So. 3d 778 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
Co. , , 821, , 302 (La.1971).
Fredrick v. Big River Enterprises, Inc. 188 So. 3d 405 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
Autin v. Voronkova 177 So. 3d 1067 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
Co., , (1971), and Allen v. Noble Drilling (U.S.) Inc., 93-2383, p. 6 (La.App.
State in the Interest of B.C. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
Co., So.2d 299 (La.1971).
State ex rel. B.C. 161 So. 3d 836 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Julie O'Dell Carter v. James D. Carter La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
So.2d 299 (1971), (La.App.
Willie J. Zeno, Sr. v. Jo Ann Nixon La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
Co., So.2d 299 (1971), and Allen v. Noble Drilling, Inc., 93-2383 (La.App.
Zeno v. Nixon 133 So. 3d 1285 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Co., , (1971), and Allen v. Noble Drilling, Inc., 93-2383 (La.App.
Johnson v. European Motors-Ali 129 So. 3d 697 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
Foundation Materials, Inc. v. Carrollton Mid-City Investors, L.L.C. 17 So. 3d 513 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Accordingly, pursuant to Sonnier v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, [ ,] and Lopez v. Wal-Mart Stores, 94-2059 (La.App.
Pittman v. Pittman 836 So. 2d 369 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
Flores v. Dibenedetto 811 So. 2d 1283 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
However, , (1971) held that in absence of a clear showing in motion for new trial of facts or law reasonably calculated to change outcome or reasonably believed to have denied plaintiff a fair trial, trial court properly denied the motion summarily without holding a contradictory hearing.
Cleary v. LEC UNWIRED, LLC 804 So. 2d 916 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
Lopez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 700 So. 2d 215 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
Co., , (1971); Allen v. Noble Drilling, Inc., 93-2383, p. 6 (La.App.
Grantham v. Dawson 666 So. 2d 1241 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
Allen v. Noble Drilling (U.S.) Inc. 637 So. 2d 1298 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Thibodeau v. Mayor and Councilmen of Morgan City 619 So. 2d 595 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
Co., , (1971), that a contradictory hearing is not required by Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 1971.
Butler v. Reeder 615 So. 2d 1120 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1993
Coleman v. Brooks 583 So. 2d 133 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
Succession of Morvant 578 So. 2d 549 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1991
Philip Werlein, Ltd. v. Daniels 538 So. 2d 722 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
Green v. DeFelice 466 So. 2d 1373 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
LeBlanc v. Gibbens Pools, Inc. 447 So. 2d 1195 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1984
interpreted these two articles as not changing the previous codal authority which did not require a hearing for a motion for a new trial.
Palmer v. Stokes 444 So. 2d 213 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
rehearing denied 1971; (La.App.
Starks v. Kelly 435 So. 2d 552 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
Evans v. Ivy 428 So. 2d 886 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
the Supreme Court held that a motion for a new trial does not always necessitate a contradictory hearing and that constitutional due process would not, ipso facto, be violated without one.
Miller v. Campbell 407 So. 2d 491 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
Bordelon v. Dauzat 389 So. 2d 820 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
(1971) where the application was denied without hearing, (4th Cir. 1973) where the application was granted without hearing.
Launey v. Thomas 379 So. 2d 27 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
Simas v. Hicks 381 So. 2d 949 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
*951 , (1971); Borras v. Falgoust, 285 So.
Shavers v. Shavers 350 So. 2d 912 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
Thereafter, , (1971) the trial judge summarily denied appellants applications for new trial, the order of denial being dated January 3, 1977 and filed January 4, 1977.
Coen v. Harris 312 So. 2d 359 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
Borras v. Falgoust 285 So. 2d 583 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1973
St. Mary v. Duhon 254 So. 2d 924 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
Although the Snuggs case does contain language to the effect that once the court has assigned a date for a hearing on a motion for a new trial it is without authority to dismiss the motion before the time fixed for its return, , (1971), held that a trial court could summarily dismiss an application for a new trial where no new facts were alleged which would be grounds for the granting of a new trial.