DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Hibernia Nat. Bank of New Orleans v. Bolleter, 390 So. 2d 842.

36 citing documents.

  • State v. Campos 224 So. 3d 480 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2017
  • Dyas v. Shreveport Police Department 136 So. 3d 897 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
    Hibernia Nat’l LeBlanc v. Pynes, 46,393 (La.App.2d Cir.7/13/11), .
  • LeBlanc v. PYNES 69 So. 3d 1273 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
    Hibernia Nat’l Robinson v. Goudchaux’s, Arledge v. Sherrill, 32,189 (La.
  • Hope v. City of Shreveport 862 So. 2d 1139 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
    Jones v. Soileau, supra ; (La.
  • Wiley v. Wiley 800 So. 2d 1106 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
  • Shepherd v. Williams 780 So. 2d 633 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
  • Gibson v. State 758 So. 2d 782 La. 2000
  • Arledge v. Sherrill 738 So. 2d 1215 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    Hibernia Nat’l Goodman v. Spillers, 28,933 (La.App.2d Cir.12/23/96), , writs denied, 97-0225, 97-0423 (La.3/27/97), .
  • Winn v. City of Alexandria 685 So. 2d 281 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
    Eusant v. Unity Industrial Life Ins., 195 La.
  • Campbell v. Jefferson Guaranty Bank, Inc. 628 So. 2d 263 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
  • National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Spillars 552 So. 2d 627 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
  • Ballard v. Mook 550 So. 2d 1208 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
  • Guillot v. Dockens 539 So. 2d 1301 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
    554 (1940) ] supra; Robinson v. Goudchaux’s, However, it should be noted that malicious prosecution suits are not looked upon with favor by Louisiana courts.
  • Watson v. Church's Fried Chicken, Inc. 527 So. 2d 979 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
    for the proposition that the termination of the original proceeding must be "bona fide" to support a claim for malicious prosecution and it argues that there must be something more than proof that the charges were dismissed in order to show this "bona fide termination".
  • Ortiz v. Barriffe 523 So. 2d 896 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
  • Aucoin v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. 520 So. 2d 795 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
  • Miller v. East Baton Rouge Parish Sheriff's Dept. 511 So. 2d 446 La. 1987
    Eusant v. Unity Industrial Life Ins., 195 La.
  • Engrum v. Boise Southern Company 512 So. 2d 594 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
  • Touchton v. Kroger Company 512 So. 2d 520 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
    554 (1940); as follows: "(1) the commencement or continuance of an original criminal or civil judicial proceeding; (2) its legal causation by the present defendant in the original proceeding; (3) its bona fide termination in favor of the present plaintiffs; (4) the absence of probable cause for such proceeding; (5) the
  • Wattigny v. Lambert 490 So. 2d 1115 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
  • Moity v. Bodin 489 So. 2d 474 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    This test has been reaffirmed by this court on several occasions
  • Blackwell v. Blackwell 479 So. 2d 1085 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
  • Dubois v. State Through Dept. of Pub. Safety 466 So. 2d 1381 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
    (on rehearing); (La.App.
  • Blood v. State, Department of Wildlife & Fisheries 458 So. 2d 1006 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
  • Hunt v. Chapman 458 So. 2d 206 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    which was a suit for malicious prosecution), finding that malice will be inferred “when there is an absence of probable cause ...
  • Stark v. Eunice Superette, Inc. 457 So. 2d 291 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
    3 Cir.1980), writ refused
  • Allen v. STATE THROUGH DEPT. OF HEALTH & HUMAN RESOURCES 456 So. 2d 679 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1984
    Eusant v. Unity Industrial Life Insurance Assn, supra
  • Hoff v. Canal Refining Co. 454 So. 2d 188 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
  • Jones v. Soileau 448 So. 2d 1268 La. 1984
    This test has been reaffirmed by this court on several occasions
  • Jones v. Soileau 435 So. 2d 503 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • Eastman v. Time Saver Stores, Inc. 428 So. 2d 1163 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1983
    There had been systematic cash shortages in the store which always coincided with her shift, regardless of whom she worked with.” In Robinson v. Goudchaux’s, the Supreme Court of Louisiana defined the elements necessary to support a malicious prosecution claim: (1) The commencement or continuation of an original criminal or civil proceeding; (2) Its legal causation by the present defendant against plaintiff who was defendant in the original proceeding; (3) Its b
  • Lincecum v. AdServe, Inc. 417 So. 2d 1247 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    the Supreme Court reiterated the requirements for a successful suit for malicious prosecution: “In Robinson v. Goudchaux’s, this court defined the elements necessary to support a claim for malicious prosecution: ‘...
  • Kent v. Stewart 413 So. 2d 583 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
  • Leaman & Co., Inc. v. Victory Iron Works 411 So. 2d 666 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
    554 (1940), the Supreme Court set forth the elements that must be alleged and proven to recover in an action for malicious prosecution.
  • Young Oil Co. of La., Inc. v. Durbin 412 So. 2d 620 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
  • Darbonne v. Sonic Drive-In 405 So. 2d 643 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    our Supreme Court stated the elements necessary to support a claim for malicious prosecution are: “.