Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Trahan v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, 314 So. 2d 350.

80 citing documents.

Dorothy Banish Madden v. Steven Ray Fairburn, K.S. Timber Company, Inc., Plaza Insurance Company, XYZ Insurance Company, & … La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2024
The Louisiana Supreme Court' s ( La.
Randall Kling v. Troy Hebert Ernest P. Legier, Jr., in His Official Capacity as the Commissioner of the … La. 2024
Bayou Bridge Pipeline, LLC v. 38.00 Acres, More or Less, Located in St. Martin Parish La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2020
To determine the merits of these opposing arguments, we must first examine the meaning of the term “cause of action.” In Everything on Wheels Subaru, Inc. v. Subaru S., Inc., (footnotes omitted), our supreme court stated: this court defined cause of action as “an act by a defendant which gives a plaintiff a right to invoke judicial interference on his behalf.” The court pointed out the difference between a demand, which is “the object of the suit,” and a cause of action, which is “the state of
Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc. v. Canal Insurance Co. 202 So. 3d 1160 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
Brandi Billeaudeau v. Opelousas General Hospital Health System La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
Holly D. Swayze v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company 172 So. 3d 1026 La. 2015
Church Mutual Insurance Co. v. Dardar 145 So. 3d 271 La. 2014
Udomeh v. Joseph 103 So. 3d 343 La. 2012
Co., see Everything on Wheels Subaru, Inc. v. Subaru South, Inc., ("cause of action, as used in the context of the peremptory exception, means the operative facts which give rise to the plaintiff's right to judicially assert the action against the defendant.”).
Toomer v. A-1 FENCE & PATIO, INC. 29 So. 3d 609 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Toomer v. A-1 Fence & Patio, Inc. 29 So. 3d 609 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Lee v. Constar, Inc. 921 So. 2d 1240 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
Kinchen v. Metropolitan Property & Casualty Insurance Co. 923 So. 2d 678 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
The trial court concluded as a matter of law that suit against Metropolitan in its capacity as Mrs. Rome’s insurer did not interrupt prescription against Metropolitan in its capacity as Stephen Rome’s
Glod v. Baker 899 So. 2d 642 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
The supreme court explained the cause of action concept in Everything on Wheels Subaru, Inc. v. Subaru South, Inc., , as follows: *654 this court defined cause of action as "an act by a defendant which gives a plaintiff a right to invoke judicial interference on his behalf."
Walter A. Glod, Jr., M.D. v. W. Gregory Baker La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
The supreme court explained the cause of action concept in Everything on Wheels Subaru, Inc. v. Subaru South, Inc., as follows: this court defined cause of action as “an act by a defendant which gives a plaintiff a right to invoke judicial interference on his behalf.” The court pointed out the difference between a demand, which is “the object of the suit,” and a cause of action, which is “the state of
Spencer v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation & Development 887 So. 2d 35 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
Co., , 353 n. 4 (La.1975), this court defined cause of action, in the context of an issue of interruption of prescription, as “[t]he juridical facts which constitute the basis of the right,” “[t]he immediate basis of the right which the party seeks to exercise,” and “[t]hat which serves as a basis for demand.” Under these
Spencer v. STATE EX REL. DOTD 887 So. 2d 35 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
Co., , 353 n. 4 (La.1975), this court defined cause of action, in the context of an issue of interruption of prescription, as "[t]he juridical facts which constitute the basis of the right," "[t]he immediate basis of the right which the party seeks to exercise," and "[t]hat which serves as a basis for demand."
State of Louisiana v. Sherwood Alvin Hamilton, $1537.oo U.S. Currency and a Ruger R-145 .22 Pistol (Zo54032) La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
3 Cir. 11/24/99), a panel of this court, citing the supreme court’s defined a cause of action as “an act by a Defendant which gives a Plaintiff a right to invoke a judicial interference on his behalf.” Mr. Hamilton contends on appeal that the trial court erred in sustaining the exception of no cause of action because the judge ignored the jurisprudence relevant t
State v. Hamilton 858 So. 2d 822 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
3 Cir. 11/24/99), , a panel of this court, citing the supreme court’s defined a cause of action as “an act by a Defendant which gives a Plaintiff a right to invoke a judicial interference on his behalf.” | sMr.
Phillips v. Francis 817 So. 2d 107 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
Co., the court, quoting from Hope v. Madison, 192 La.
Benoit v. Allstate Ins. Co. 773 So. 2d 702 La. 2000
Co., , 353 n. 4 (La.1975), this court defined cause of action, in the context of an issue of interruption of prescription, [5] as "[t]he juridical facts which constitute the basis of the right," "[t]he immediate basis of the right which the party seeks to exercise," and "[t]hat which serves as a basis for demand."
Dempster v. A.P. Green Industries, Inc. 753 So. 2d 330 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
Co., to prove that an insurer’s relationship to a particular defendant is separate and independent from that insurer’s relationship to another defendant.
Harp v. PINE BLUFF AND SAND GRAVEL CO. 750 So. 2d 226 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
Jamison v. Hilton 721 So. 2d 494 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
Co., Burmaster v. Gravity Drainage Dist.
Gauthe v. Asbestos Corp. Ltd. 703 So. 2d 763 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1997
Guillot v. Blue Cross of Louisiana 690 So. 2d 91 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
Co., involve delictual actions, not contractual disputes.
Rivard v. Petroleum Transport Co., Inc. 663 So. 2d 755 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
Aymond v. Rabalais 657 So. 2d 165 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
In Owens, supra, the Supreme Court, quoting from its decision in Trahan v. Liberty Mutual Insurance 14Co., defined a cause of action as “the state of facts which gives a party a right to judicially assert an action.” No evidence may be introduced by either party to support or to controvert the objection of no cause of action.
White v. White 641 So. 2d 538 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
In Owens, supra, the Supreme Court, defined a cause of action as "the state of facts which gives a party a right to judicially assert an action."
Steptoe v. Lallie Kemp Hosp. 634 So. 2d 331 La. 1994
Everything on Wheels Subaru, Inc. v. Subaru South, Inc. 616 So. 2d 1234 La. 1993
this court defined cause of action as "an act by a defendant which gives a plaintiff a right to invoke judicial interference on his behalf."
HOUSTON GEN. INS. CO. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co. 612 So. 2d 787 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
Louviere v. Shell Oil Co., 440 So.2d at 95
Cole v. Celotex Corp. 599 So. 2d 1058 La. 1992
("[t]he cause of action is the state of facts which gives a party a right to judicially assert an action against the defendant"); (La.App.
Autrey v. Energy Corp. of America, Inc. 594 So. 2d 1354 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
Co., Baker v. Payne & Keller of Louisiana, Inc.
Parker v. Southern American Ins. Co. 578 So. 2d 1021 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1991
The distinction between a demand of a suit and a
Miller v. Everett 576 So. 2d 1162 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1991
Grant v. Politz 575 So. 2d 915 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
Co., National Surety Corp. v. Standard Accident Ins.
Ward v. Tenneco Oil Co. 564 So. 2d 814 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
Moore v. Roemer 560 So. 2d 927 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
LP v. Oubre 547 So. 2d 1320 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
(Emphasis provided)'" (La.
Courmier-Trahan v. Service Cab Co., Inc. 546 So. 2d 513 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
Crockett v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc. 538 So. 2d 1133 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
Comeaux v. Poindexter 527 So. 2d 1184 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
Federal Insurance Company v. Insurance Company of North America, 262 La.
Scott v. Burden 527 So. 2d 468 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
Riehm v. Kellogg 520 So. 2d 1169 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
Ward v. Pennington 523 So. 2d 1286 La. 1988
Babin v. Saturn Engineering Corp. 501 So. 2d 857 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1987
Bertrand v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. 491 So. 2d 474 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
Vicknair v. Hibernia Bldg. Corp. 468 So. 2d 695 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
First Stake Insurance Com. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 464 So. 2d 782 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Louviere v. Shell Oil Company, supra
Owens v. Martin 449 So. 2d 448 La. 1984

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by