DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Thurman v. Star Electric Supply, Inc., 283 So. 2d 212.

37 citing documents.

  • Adams v. South Lafourche Levee District 199 So. 3d 20 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    Supply, Inc., -16 (La.1973).
  • Bailey v. DeLaCruz 143 So. 3d 1220 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
    *1227 Thurman v. Star Electric Supply, Inc., held that the trial court may grant a new trial on “all issues despite requesting a new trial on only a few multiple issues.” When a party seeks a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence, the party must demonstrate that he or she made every reasonable and diligent effort to procure the evidence
  • State of Louisiana, Dotd v. Triangle Property, LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
    Thurman v. Star Electric Supply, Inc.
  • State, Department of Transportation & Development v. Triangle Property, LLC 125 So. 3d 473 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    Thurman v. Star Electric Supply, Inc.
  • Boyd v. Allied Signal, Inc. 997 So. 2d 111 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
    In Thurman v. Star Electric Supply, Inc., the supreme court disagreed with this court's interpretation of the emphasized sentence to mean that when a new trial is granted as to one or less than all of the issues, the judgment will not be held in abeyance as to the other issues unless ordered by the trial court.
  • Forbes v. Cockerham 985 So. 2d 86 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
    art.1971 and Thurman v. Star Electric Supply, Inc., (La.
  • RIVER CITY FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK v. Johnston 966 So. 2d 1246 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
    Thurman v. Star Electric Supply, Inc., (La.
  • Roch v. Accent Construction Co. 961 So. 2d 1265 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
  • Rosen v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation & Development 785 So. 2d 1049 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    Mr. Rosen cites Thurman v. Star Electric Supply, Inc., in support of his contention that the motion for new trial filed by the intervenor did not operate as a motion for new trial for the purpose of calculating DOTD’s appeal delay.
  • Shear v. Shear 695 So. 2d 1026 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1997
  • Telerecovery of Louisiana, Inc. v. Gaulon 685 So. 2d 341 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    Supply, Inc., the Louisiana Supreme Court stated: The final clause in C.C.P.1971 would lead one to believe that a judgment would not be stayed unless the judge orders the stay when granting a partial new trial.
  • Tucker v. Northeast Louisiana Tree Service 665 So. 2d 672 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
    Thurman v. Star Electric Supply, Inc., (La.
  • Hollingsworth v. American General Fire & Casualty Co. 640 So. 2d 832 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
  • Hare v. Hodgins 618 So. 2d 1210 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
    The Supreme Court in Thurman v. Star Electric Supply, Inc., had explained why, in most cases, judgment should be held in abeyance until all issues have been resolved by the trial court.
  • Lesniewski v. Lesniewski 595 So. 2d 361 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
    Thurman v. Star Electric Supply, Inc.
  • Willie v. Barriere Const. Co., Inc. 506 So. 2d 669 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1987
    Our supreme court in Thurman v. Star Electric Supply, Inc., (La.
  • Palgrave v. Tallieu 483 So. 2d 678 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
    [citations omitted.]" The Supreme Court in Thurman v. Star Electric Supply, Inc., (La.
  • In re Succession of Mizell 468 So. 2d 1370 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    However, “in the absence of clear and compelling reasons why [the] appeal should be dismissed, we find that the better practice is to allow the appeal.” Thurman v. Star Electric Supply, Inc.
  • Simar v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co. 469 So. 2d 4 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    In Thurman v. Star Electric Supply, Inc., the Supreme Court concluded that a new trial application by one party does not necessarily extend another party’s delay for appealing.
  • Barker v. Rust Engineering Co. 428 So. 2d 391 La. 1983
    C.C.P.1971, 2087, 2123; Thurman v. Star Electric Supply, Inc., -17 (La.1973).
  • Bantin v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation & Development 411 So. 2d 63 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    We do not consider that our decision in Billeaud, supra, and in this case conflicts with Thurman v. Star Electric Supply, Inc., on which case mover primarily relies.
  • Bantin v. STATE, THROUGH DEPT. OF TRANSP., ETC. 411 So. 2d 63 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
    We do not consider that our decision in Billeaud, supra, and in this case conflicts with Thurman v. Star Electric Supply, Inc., on which case mover primarily relies.
  • Succession of Brice 390 So. 2d 905 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1980
    See Thurman v. Star Electric Supply, Inc.
  • Kidd v. Fortenberry 384 So. 2d 509 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1980
    Thurman v. Star Electric Supply, Inc.
  • Crowe v. Howard 372 So. 2d 1057 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
    Thurman v. Star Electric Supply, Inc., Smith v. Board of Commissioners of Port of New Orleans, 262 La.
  • Snell v. Snell 361 So. 2d 936 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1978
    Thurman v. Star Electric Supply, Inc., (La.
  • Madere v. Johnson 367 So. 2d 1194 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
    Thurman v. Star Electric Supply, Inc., (La.
  • Comeaux v. Matix 367 So. 2d 1192 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
    Supply, Inc., La.1973, .” In this case the motion for a partial new trial filed by the plaintiffs-appellees prevents the original judgment from becoming final as to the defendant State Farm.
  • Oliver v. Milliken & Farwell, Inc. 356 So. 2d 443 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    Motion for new trial by one party ordinarily does not extend another’s delay for appealing, unless the nature of the proceeding is such that one party’s motion prevents the judgment from becoming final as to another; Thurman v. Star Electric Supply, Inc., La.1973, .” As we understand the facts, a change in the judgment as to Davis, if a new trial be granted would almost inevitably affect the judgment as to all other parties.
  • Donica v. Donica 324 So. 2d 847 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
    This same argument was confronted by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Thurman v. Star Electric Supply, Inc., (1973) wherein the court stated: "It is true that the implication from reading C.C.P.
  • In Re Salmon 318 So. 2d 897 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1975
    96 , (1972); Thurman v. Star Electric Supply, Inc.
  • Wade v. McInnis-Peterson Chevrolet, Inc. 307 So. 2d 798 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
    (in Thurman v. Star Electric Supply, Inc., La., ).
  • Payton v. Aetna Life and Casualty Company 299 So. 2d 489 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1974
    In Thurman v. Star Electric Supply, Inc., La., (1973), the Supreme Court cited Wright, Jr. v. Mark C. Smith & Sons, La., (1973) for the proposition that a "motion for a new trial by one defendant does not operate as if it were a motion for a new trial on behalf of all defendants."
  • Thibodeaux v. Lock Clinic 299 So. 2d 574 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1974
    Supply, Inc., La.1973, .
  • Thibodeaux v. Lock Clinic 322 So. 2d 805 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
  • Woodsum v. New Orleans Public Library 289 So. 2d 878 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
  • Nelson v. Nelson 311 So. 2d 265 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
    If a new trial is granted as to less than all parties or issues, the judgment may be held in abeyance as to all parties and issues.” We note the case of Thurman v. Star Electric Company, Inc., La., (1973), 1 and are of the opinion that it would be dispositive of the case before us except for one distinguishing feature, i. e., the procedural posture of the case.