Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Morgan v. Matlack, Inc., 342 So. 2d 167.

53 citing documents.

Panzico v. Price 658 So. 2d 1310 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
See Morgan v. Matlack, Inc., (La.App.
Panzico v. Price 647 So. 2d 1154 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
Perkins v. McDow 615 So. 2d 312 La. 1993
Schroeder v. Board of Sup'rs 591 So. 2d 342 La. 1991
Carlin v. Rapides Parish Police Jury 584 So. 2d 337 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1991
Morgan v. Matlack, Inc., (La.
Garner v. Law 560 So. 2d 108 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
Philyaw v. Mid-American Indemnity Co. 548 So. 2d 83 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Haas v. Gill 531 So. 2d 457 La. 1988
Morgan v. Matlack, Inc., (La.App.
Kenney v. Cessna Aircraft Co. 525 So. 2d 666 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
Rosenthal v. Oubre 504 So. 2d 1102 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1987
Planters Trust & Savings Bank v. Sentry Drill Collar Inspection 503 So. 2d 1163 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
Morgan v. Matlack, Inc., aff’d, (La.App.
Malmay v. Sizemore 493 So. 2d 620 La. 1986
Moreover, there was a reasonable basis for *624 the trial court to conclude that Beverly Heggen had not granted her son discretion to allow others to use the vehicle, as in Morgan v. Matlack, Inc., and that there had not been a pattern of known usage by others from which tacit approval of her son's lending the truck to others might be inferred, as in Building Specialties, (La.App.
Fontenot v. Waste Management of Lake Charles, Inc. 493 So. 2d 904 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
Comeaux v. Pa. General Ins. Co. 490 So. 2d 1191 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
Barnhill v. Barnhill 488 So. 2d 299 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Barstow v. Isbell 488 So. 2d 320 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Brooks v. City of Lake Charles 488 So. 2d 465 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
Ryder ex rel. Cupp v. Federated Rural Electric Insurance Co. 495 So. 2d 950 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Morgan v. Matlack, Inc., Stallings v. W.H.
City of Covington v. Glockner 486 So. 2d 837 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Morgan v. Matlack, Inc., Lytell v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., (La.App.
Gilvin v. Arabi Cab Co. 483 So. 2d 159 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
Morgan v. Matlack, Inc., Stallings v. W.H.
Massingale v. Sibley 449 So. 2d 98 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
In Morgan v. Matlack, Inc., appears the following: The law is well settled that a motion for summary judgment should be granted if, and only if, the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to material fact, and that the mo
Lytell v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. 439 So. 2d 542 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
[3] Morgan v. Matlack, Inc., (La.App.
Ledbetter v. Myers 438 So. 2d 700 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
Quintana Petroleum Corp. v. Alpha Investments Corp. 435 So. 2d 1092 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
SUMMARY JUDGMENT In Morgan v. Matlack, Inc., appears the following: The law is well settled that a motion for summary judgment should be granted if, and only if, the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to material fact, and that the mo
Fallo v. Tuboscope Inspection, Intracoastal Pipe Repair & Supply Co. 435 So. 2d 1033 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
1978); Morgan v. Matlack, Inc., (La.
Boudreaux v. Verret 422 So. 2d 1167 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
v. City of Baton Rouge, and Morgan v. Matlack, Inc., "
McKenzie v. Standard Life Insurance Co. 422 So. 2d 1387 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
The rules applicable to determining the merits of a motion for summary judgment are set forth in Morgan v. Matlack, Inc., as follows: “The law is well settled that a motion for summary judgment should be granted if, and only if, the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to material fact, and that the mover is ent
Doyen v. Cessna Aircraft Co. 416 So. 2d 1337 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
Morgan v. Matlack, Inc., Stallings v. W. H. Kennedy & Son, Inc.
Sevin v. Gallois 416 So. 2d 601 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Home Insurance Co. v. Simon 411 So. 2d 1268 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Morgan v. Matlack, Inc., Stallings v. W. H. Kennedy & Son, Inc.
Barnes v. Combined Ins. Co. of America 409 So. 2d 700 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
Morgan v. Matlack, Inc., Stallings v. W. H. Kennedy & Son, Inc.
Melon v. Capital City Press 407 So. 2d 85 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
*87 In Morgan v. Matlack, Inc., the Supreme Court reaffirmed its holding in Cates, supra, stating that, "Only when reasonable minds must inevitably conclude that the mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the facts before the court is a summary judgment warranted."
Reine v. Kearns 402 So. 2d 805 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
1977); Morgan v. Matlack, Inc., (La.
Lee v. Allstate Insurance 402 So. 2d 181 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
1978) and Morgan v. Matlack, Inc., (La.
Howard v. Callahan 396 So. 2d 607 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
Morgan v. Matlack, Inc., Stallings v. W. H. Kennedy & Son, Inc.
Dow Chemical Co. v. Cenard Oil & Gas Co. 394 So. 2d 1298 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
Morgan v. Matlack, Inc., Batson Lumber Co., (La.App.
Thornhill v. Black, Sivalls & Bryson, Inc. 394 So. 2d 1189 La. 1981
1978); Morgan v. Matlack, Inc., (La.
Eppinette v. Smelser 391 So. 2d 1335 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
Chaisson v. Domingue, supra; Morgan v. Matlack, Inc.
Gulf-Wandes Corp. v. Vinson Guard Serv., Inc. 393 So. 2d 207 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
art. 966; Morgan v. Matlack, Inc.
Hobgood v. Fidelity & Casualty Insurance 392 So. 2d 116 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
art. 966; Morgan v. Matlack, Inc., Stallings v. W. H. Kennedy & Son, Inc.
Linder v. Blount 392 So. 2d 122 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
Morgan v. Matlack, Inc., Fly v. Hand, supra.
Boudreaux v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 385 So. 2d 480 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
In Morgan v. Matlack, Inc., (La.
Gamble v. Gamble 391 So. 2d 848 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
art. 966; Morgan v. Matlack, Inc., Stallings v. W. H. Kennedy & Son, Inc.
Sonnier Oldsmobile, Inc. v. Southeastern Fidelity Ins. Co. 377 So. 2d 572 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
A later opinion, Morgan v. Matlack, Inc., holds that whether the first permission to use a car constitutes a delegation of authority to lend it to another is a question of fact.
Fly v. Hand 376 So. 2d 1016 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
Morgan v. Matlack, Inc., (La.
Chaisson v. Domingue 372 So. 2d 1225 La. 1979
1978); Morgan v. Matlack, Inc., (La.
Ray v. Associated Indem. Corp. 373 So. 2d 166 La. 1979
Robert J. Naquin & Associates, Inc. v. Portage Plantation, Inc. 372 So. 2d 821 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
art. 966; Morgan v. Matlack, Inc., Stallings v. W. H. Kennedy & Son, Inc.
Emp. Surplus Line Ins. v. City of Baton Rouge 362 So. 2d 561 La. 1978
1977); Morgan v. Matlack, Inc., Stallings v. W. H. Kennedy & Son, Inc.
Lawrence v. Moore 362 So. 2d 803 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
[3] Morgan v. Matlack, La., .

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by