DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Day v. Campbell-Grosjean Roofing & Sheet Metal Corp., 256 So. 2d 105.

154 citing documents.

  • Arceneaux v. Amstar Corp. 66 So. 3d 438 La. 2011
    Day v. Campbell-Grosjean Roofing & Sheet Metal Corp., , (1971).
  • State v. Scoggins 70 So. 3d 145 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
  • First Bank and Trust v. Duwell 70 So. 3d 15 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2011
    But the policy reasons behind applying this principle are strong and include avoidance of re-litigation of an issue, consistency of result in the same litigation, and promotion of efficiency and fairness to the parties “by affording a single opportunity for the argument and decision of the matter at issue.” Day v. Campbell-Grosjean Roofing & Sheet Metal Corp., , Bank One, supra.
  • Daigre v. International Truck & Engine Corp. 67 So. 3d 504 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    Day v. Campbell-Grosjean Roofing & Sheet Metal Corp., , (1971).
  • Peters v. Greyhound Lines, Inc. 52 So. 3d 229 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    Day v. Campbell-Grosjean Roofing & Sheet Metal Corp., , (footnotes omitted).
  • Saizan v. Pointe Coupee Parish School Board 49 So. 3d 559 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    See Day v. Campbell-Grosjean Roofing & Sheet Metal Corp., -331 , (1971).
  • Scott v. American Tobacco Co., Inc. 36 So. 3d 1046 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    The policy reasons behind this doctrine include avoidance of re-litigation of an issue, consistency of result in the same litigation, and promotion of efficiency and fairness to the parties “by affording a single opportunity for the argument and decision of the matter at issue.” Day v. Campbell-Grosjean Roofing & Sheet Metal Corp., , Bank One, supra.
  • Skannal v. Bamburg 33 So. 3d 227 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
  • State v. Davis 30 So. 3d 201 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    4 Cir. 2/27/08), , this court set forth the law of the case doctrine, quoting Day v. Campbell-Grosjean Roofing & Sheet Metal Corp., , as follows: With regard to an appellate court, the “law of the case” refers to a policy by which the court will not, on a subsequent appeal, reconsider prior rulings in the same case.
  • Robertson v. Hessler 13 So. 3d 1214 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    In Day v. Campbell-Grosjean Roofing & Sheet Metal Corp., , (1972), the Supreme Court stated: With regard to an appellate court, the “law of the case” refers to a policy by which the court will not, on a subsequent appeal, reconsider prior rulings in the same case.
  • Lewis v. ODECO, INC. 12 So. 3d 363 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    4 Cir. 2/27/08), *370 , this Court set forth the law regarding the law of the case doctrine as follows: In Day v. Campbellr-Grosjean Roofing & Sheet Metal Corp., , the Supreme Court stated: With regard to an appellate court, the “law of the case” refers to a policy by which the court will not, on a subsequent appeal, reconsider prior rulings in the same case.
  • Benard v. EAGLE, INC. 1 So. 3d 588 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
    Day v. Campbell-Grosjean Roofing & Sheet Metal Corp., , (1971).
  • Caldwell v. STATE EX REL. DEPT. OF SOCIAL SERVS. 991 So. 2d 546 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
    See also, Day v. Campbell-Grosjean Roofing & Sheet Metal Corp., , (1971).
  • Caldwell v. State ex rel. Department of Social Services, Office of Community Services 991 So. 2d 546 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
    See also, Day v. Campbell-Grosjean Roofing & Sheet Metal Carp., , (1971).
  • Johnson v. Folse 986 So. 2d 110 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
    Corp., , (1971); Louisiana State Bar Assn. v. Theard, 225 La.
  • Coury Moss, Inc. v. A. Sam Coury La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
  • Coury Moss, Inc. v. Coury 981 So. 2d 936 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
  • Succession of William J. Moss La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    Day v. Campbell-Grosjean Roofing and 3 Sheet Metal Corp., So.2d 105 (1971).
  • In Re Succession of Moss 980 So. 2d 120 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
  • Delta Chemical Corp. v. Lynch 979 So. 2d 579 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
    In Day v. Campbell-Grosjean Roofing & Sheet Metal Corp., , the Supreme Court stated: With regard to an appellate court, the "law of the case" refers to a policy by which the court will not, on a subsequent appeal, reconsider prior rulings in the same case.
  • Eastin v. Entergy Corp. 971 So. 2d 374 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2007
    Landry v. Blaise, id .; see also, Day v. Campbell-Grosjean Roofing & Sheet Metal Corp., , -108 (1971), and Bonar v. Bonar, 00-232 (La.App.
  • State v. Langley 958 So. 2d 1160 La. 2007
    As stated by Justice Tate in Day v. Campbell-Grosjean Roofing & Sheet Metal Corp., , most recently cited in Pumphrey, supra: .
  • Alex v. Rayne Concrete Service 951 So. 2d 138 La. 2007
    MARAIST AND LEMMON, § 14.17, p. 405 (1999); Day v. Campbell-Grosjean Roofing & Sheet Metal Corp., , (1971).
  • Pumphrey v. City of New Orleans 925 So. 2d 1202 La. 2006
    Law of the Case Doctrine In Day v. Campbell-Grosjean Roofing & Sheet Metal Corp., , this Court explained with Justice Tate as organ for the Court: With regard to an appellate court, the `law of the case' refers to a policy by which the court will not, on a subsequent appeal, reconsider prior rulings in the same case.
  • Bank One, Nat. Ass'n v. Velten 917 So. 2d 454 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
    Day v. Campbell-Grosjean Roofing & Sheet Metal Corp., , (1971).
  • Martinez Management, Inc. v. Caston 900 So. 2d 301 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
    Will Drill Resources, Inc. v. Huggs, Inc., 36,797 (La.App.2d Cir.1/29/03), ; Northeast Realty, supra, citing Day v. Campbell— Grosjean Roofing and Sheet Metal Corporation, , (1971); Louisiana Land and Exploration Co. v. Verdin, 95-2579 (La.App.
  • NEW ORLEANS REDEVELOPMENT AUTHOR. v. Lucas 881 So. 2d 1246 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
    Day v. Campbell-Grosjean Roofing & Sheet Metal Corp., , (1971).
  • Justin Douglas Henderson v. Brian Sellers La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
  • Henderson v. Sellers 861 So. 2d 923 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
  • Figueroa v. Hardtner Medical Center 852 So. 2d 1187 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
    Will Drill Resources, Inc. v. Huggs, Inc., 36,797 (La.App.2d Cir.1/29/03), ; Northeast Realty, supra, citing Day v. Campbell-Grosjean Roofing and Sheet *1190 Metal Corporation, , (1971); Louisiana Land and Exploration Company v. Verdin, 95-2579 (La.App.
  • Will Drill Resources, Inc. v. Huggs, Inc. 836 So. 2d 1211 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
    Day v. Campbell-Grosjean Roofing & Sheet Metal Corp., , (1971); Webb Const., Inc. v. City of Shreveport, 33,654 (La.App.2d Cir.08/23/00), , writ denied, 2000-2674 (La.11/17/00), ; Coldwell Banker J. Wesley Dowling and Associates, Inc. v. City Bank and Trust of Shreveport, 25,684 (La.
  • Bellard v. Biddle 834 So. 2d 1238 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
  • Vernon Parish Police Jury v. Buckley 829 So. 2d 610 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
  • Northeast Realty v. Jackson 824 So. 2d 1264 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
    (1971); Louisiana Land and Exploration Company v. Verdin, 95-2579 (La.App.
  • Clavier v. Roberts 783 So. 2d 599 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
    2 Cir. 5/10/95); , writs granted, 95-1466, 95-1487 (La.10/6/95); , reversed on merits, 95-1466, 95-1466 (La.5/10/96); ; see also Day v. Campbell-Grosjean Roofing & Sheet Metal Corp., , (1971).
  • Waffle House, Inc. v. Corporate Properties, Ltd. 780 So. 2d 593 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
  • EDC v. Quality Environmental Processes, Inc. 777 So. 2d 481 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
    (1971), the Louisiana Supreme Court discussed at length the "law of the case" concept and stated that while a court will generally decline to reconsider prior rulings, the policy applies only against those who have had their day in court.
  • Bonar v. Bonar 768 So. 2d 194 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
    In Day v. Campbell-Grosjean Roofing & Sheet Metal Corp., , -108 (1971), our Supreme Court set out an explanation of "law of the case" which has remained the most-cited definition of the doctrine: With regard to an appellate court, the `law of the case' refers to a policy by which the court will not, on a subsequent appeal, reconsider prior rulings in the s
  • Kaleel v. Division Transport 769 So. 2d 110 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
    2 Cir. 5/10/95); , writs granted, 95-1466, 95-1487 (La.10/6/95); , reversed on merits, 95-1466, 95-1487 (La.5/10/96); ; see also Day v. Campbell-Grosjean Roofing & Sheet Metal Corp., , , The reasons for this doctrine are: (1) avoidance of indefinite litigations; (2) consistency of results in same litigation; (3) essential fairness between the parties; and, (4) judicial efficiency.
  • McPherson v. LAKE AREA MEDICAL CENTER 767 So. 2d 102 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
    2 Cir. 5/10/95); , writs granted, 95-1466, 95-1487 (La.10/6/95), , reversed on merits, 95-1466, 95-1487 (La.5/10/96), ; see also Day v. Campbell-Grosjean Roofing & Sheet Metal Corp., , (1971).
  • State v. James 740 So. 2d 200 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    Day v. Campbell-Grosjean Roofing & Sheet Metal Corp., , (1971); Sharkey v. Sterling Drug, Inc., (La.App.
  • Burkett v. UDS Management Corp. 741 So. 2d 838 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    2 Cir. 5/10/95); , writs granted, 95-1466, 95-1487 (La.10/6/95), , reversed on merits, 95-1466, 95-1487 (La.5/10/96), ; see also Day v. Campbell-Grosjean Roofing & Sheet Metal Corp., , (1971).
  • Edwards v. Daugherty 729 So. 2d 1112 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
    Sloane, ; Day v. Campbell-Grosjean Roofing & Sheet Metal Corp., , (1971).
  • Schultz v. Doyle 727 So. 2d 691 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
    2 Cir. 5/10/95); , writs granted, 95-1466, 95-1487 (La.10/6/95); , reversed on merits, 95-1466, 95-1487 (La.5/10/96); ; see also Day v. Campbell-Gros-jean Roofing & Sheet Metal Corp., , (1971).
  • Wicker v. Wicker 708 So. 2d 1136 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    Day v. Campbell-Grosjean Roofing & Sheet Metal Corporation, , , 107 n. 1 (1971).
  • Ducote v. City of Alexandria 706 So. 2d 673 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
    2 Cir. 5/10/95); , writs granted, 95-1466, 95-1487 (La.10/6/95); , reversed on merits, 95-1466, 95-1487 (La.5/10/96); ; see also Day v. Campbell-Grosjean Roofing & Sheet Metal Corp., , (1971).
  • Wilridge v. Capitol Manufacturing Co. 704 So. 2d 966 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
    See Day v. Campbell-Grosjean Roofing & Sheet Metal Corp., , (1971); (La.App.
  • Succession of Williams 704 So. 2d 913 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
  • Owens v. Concordia Elec. Co-Op., Inc. 699 So. 2d 434 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
    of New Orleans, Day v. Campbell-Grosjean Roofing & Sheet Metal Corp., , (1971).
  • Johnson v. Acadiana Ry. Co. 693 So. 2d 226 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
    2 Cir. 5/10/95); , *229 664, writs granted, 95-1466, 95-1487 (La.10/6/95); , reversed on merits, 95-1466, 95-1487 (La.5/10/96); ; see also Day v. Campbell-Grosjean Roofing & Sheet Metal Corp., , (1971).