Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Smith v. Cajun Insulation, Inc., 392 So. 2d 398.

205 citing documents.

Christopher Ayro v. Willstaff, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
Dental Sch., Smith v. Cajun Insulation, Inc., Puchner v. Employers’ Liab.
Spilsbury v. City of New Orleans 136 So. 3d 253 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Smith v. Cajun Insulation, Inc., Freechou v. Thomas W. Hooley, Inc.
Ayro v. Willstaff, Inc. 153 So. 3d 1156 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Dental Sch, Smith v. Cajun Insulation, Inc., Puc hner v. Employers’ Liab.
Succession of Harrison 129 So. 3d 681 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
Smith v. Cajun Insulation, Inc., Murrell v. Murrell, 42,070 (La.App.2d Cir.4/25/07), .
Larry Tomasik v. La State Veterans Affairs Office La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
Smith v. Cajun Insulation, Inc.
Tomasik v. LA State Veterans Affairs Office 124 So. 3d 613 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
Smith v. Cajun Insulation, Inc.
Midland Funding, LLC v. Cady 110 So. 3d 656 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
art. 865; Scranton v. Ashley Ann Energy, 46,984 (La.App.
Southeastern Louisiana University v. Cook 104 So. 3d 124 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Smith v. Cajun Insulation, Inc., , 402 n. 2 (La.1980).
State v. Solorzano 85 So. 3d 101 La. 2012
Defendant's filing below, properly considered as an application for post-conviction relief, , 1316 n. 3 (La.1981); , 402 n. 2 (1980), was barred because defendant cannot satisfy the custody requirement.
State v. Solorzano 85 So. 3d 101 La. 2012
Defendant’s filing below, properly considered as an application for post-conviction relief, , 1316 n. 3 (La.1981); , 402 n. 2 (1980), was barred because defendant cannot satisfy the custody requirement.
Yellowbird Investments, L.L.C. v. Barber 87 So. 3d 970 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
art. 2004 is “designed to afford relief against a judgment procured by methods viewed with disdain by the judiciary.” Lieber, supra at 590 , citing Smith v. Cajun Insulation, Inc.
State v. Johnson 84 So. 3d 540 La. 2012
402 n. 2 (La.1980); La.C.Cr.P.
Reynolds v. Brown 84 So. 3d 655 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2011
Midland Funding LLC v. Kelly 81 So. 3d 84 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
Smith v. Cajun Insulation, Inc.
State ex rel. Lair v. State 68 So. 3d 515 La. 2011
Smith v. Isle of Capri Casino & Hotel 47 So. 3d 642 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
See Smith v. Cajun Insulation, Inc., -402 (La.1980); Morris v. East Baton Rouge Parish School Board, 93-2396 (La.App.
Suprun v. Louisiana Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance 40 So. 3d 261 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
See Smith v. Cajun Insulation, Inc.
Payan v. FRANCIS CHIMENTO ENTERPRISES, INC. 34 So. 3d 351 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
5 Cir. 5/30/01) , , citing Smith v. Cajun Insulation, Inc.
Wooley v. Lucksinger 14 So. 3d 311 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Lindsey v. State, 99-2755, p. 1 (La.10/1/99), ; Smith v. Cajun Insulation, Inc., n. 2 (La.1980); St Romain v. State, Department of Wildlife & Fisheries, 2003-0291, p. 3, n. 4 (La.App.
Cajundome Commission v. Carl Meche, Director Sales Tax La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
Id., Smith v. Cajun Insulation, Inc.
Cajundome Commission v. Meche 3 So. 3d 607 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Id, Smith v. Cajun Insulation, Inc.
Gibbs v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety & Corrections 999 So. 2d 1137 La. 2009
State v. TWIN CITIES MEMORIAL GARDENS, INC. 997 So. 2d 16 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
Pumphrey v. City of New Orleans, XXXX-XXXX (La.4/4/06), ; (La.
Adams v. Parish 978 So. 2d 1202 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
Smith v. Cajun Insulation, Inc., Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Brown, 32,995 (La.App.2d Cir.4/5/00), .
BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC. v. Ferguson 974 So. 2d 790 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
Smith v. Cajun Insulation, Inc., Ford Motor Credit v. Brown, 32,995 (La.App.2d Cir.4/5/00), .
Kelda Wells v. Melvin Price La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
Smith v. Cajun Insulation, Inc.
Janis Square v. Shelter Insurance Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
In Smith v. Cajun Insulation, Inc., the Louisiana Supreme Court described the action in La.Code Civ.P.
Murrell v. Murrell 956 So. 2d 697 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
Patricia K. McNeely v. Safe Haven Enterprises, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
art. 2004] is not a substitute for an appeal from a judgment that might be erroneous due to insufficiency of evidence or misinterpretation of substantive law, but, rather, is a separate remedy designed to afford relief against a judgment procured by methods viewed with disdain by the judiciary.” Smith v. Cajun Insulation, Inc., (La.
Power Marketing Direct, Inc. v. Foster 938 So. 2d 662 La. 2006
Smith v. Cajun Insulation, Inc.
State v. Moses 932 So. 2d 701 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
[3] Compare State v. Sanders, 93-0001 (La.11/30/94), , where the Louisiana Supreme Court has recognized that courts should "look through the caption of pleadings in order to ascertain their substance and to do substantial justice .
White v. Robinson Lumber Co. 929 So. 2d 231 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
See Smith v. Cajun Insulation, Inc.
Smith v. Knight 907 So. 2d 831 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
Cox v. Boggs 899 So. 2d 770 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Brown, 32,995 (La.App.
Trahan v. COCO COLA BOTTLING CO. UNITED 894 So. 2d 1096 La. 2005
Dental Sch., Smith v. Cajun Insulation, Inc., Puchner v. Employers' Liab.
Medine v. Roniger 879 So. 2d 706 La. 2004
Smith v. Cajun Insulation, Inc.
Lindy Development, L.L.C. v. Degan 874 So. 2d 252 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
Id., Smith v. Cajun Insulation, Inc.
Jackson v. Cockerham 847 So. 2d 698 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERV. v. Cormier 841 So. 2d 1032 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
3 Cir. 3/6/96); , writ denied, 96-1315 (La.6/28/96); (quoting Smith v. Cajun Insulation, Inc., (La.
El Chico Restaurants v. Gaming Control Bd. 837 So. 2d 641 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
Smith v. Cajun Insulation, Inc.
Daniel v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 833 So. 2d 1047 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
Edwards v. Sawyer Indus.
Francois v. Leon 834 So. 2d 1109 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
3 Cir. 10/13/99) ; , citing Smith v. Cajun Insulation, Inc.
Calcasieu Parish School Bd. v. Parker 827 So. 2d 543 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
Smith v. Cajun Insulation, *546 Inc.
Owens v. Book 819 So. 2d 484 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
Belle Pass Terminal, Inc. v. Jolin, Inc. 800 So. 2d 762 La. 2001
Smith v. Cajun Insulation, Inc.
Metro Riverboat Associates, Inc. v. Louisiana Gaming Control Bd. 797 So. 2d 656 La. 2001
art. 865; Smith v. Cajun Insulation, Inc., Griffith v. Roy, 263 La.
State v. Tran 793 So. 2d 172 La. 2001
1981); , 402 n. 2 (1980), arrived below untimely.
Atchley v. Atchley 788 So. 2d 690 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
Smith v. Cajun Insulation, Inc., Thompson v. Harrington, 99-571 (La.App.
Cormier v. Ellender's Portable Bldg. 781 So. 2d 776 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
Our supreme court stated in Smith v. Cajun Insulation, Inc., "[i]n the absence of a statutorily specified method of attacking a compromise settlement judgment for non-compliance with procedural mandates, plaintiff is entitled to rely upon the general procedural devices found in the Code of Civil Procedure...."
Bays v. Bays 779 So. 2d 754 La. 2001
*758 Smith v. Cajun Insulation, Inc.