Cited by

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

205 citing documents.

Woods v. St. Charles Parish School Bd. 783 So. 2d 387 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
Smith v. Cajun Insulation, Inc.
Simmons v. Berry 779 So. 2d 910 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
Smith v. Cajun Insulation, Inc.
Livingston Parish v. Millers Mut. Fire 767 So. 2d 949 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
Smith v. Cajun Insulation, Inc.
Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Brown 756 So. 2d 654 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
Carter v. Cain 753 So. 2d 225 La. 2000
Lieber v. Caddo Levee District Board of Commissioners 748 So. 2d 587 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
Smith v. Cajun Insulation, Inc.
Thompson v. Harrington 746 So. 2d 652 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
Smith v. Cajun Insulation, Inc.
State ex rel. Lindsey v. State 748 So. 2d 456 La. 1999
402 n. 2 (La.1980) (“[C]ourts should look through the caption of pleadings in order to ascertain their substance and to do substantial justice.”).
Simmons v. Berry 748 So. 2d 473 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
Smith v. Cajun Insulation, Inc.
Estate of Patout v. City of New Iberia 738 So. 2d 544 La. 1999
Smith v. Cajun Insulation, Inc., Esteve v. Allstate Ins.
State v. Youngblood 740 So. 2d 687 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
Daley v. State, 97-2612 (La.11/7/97), ; (La.
City of New Orleans v. Bd. of Dir. of State Museum 739 So. 2d 748 La. 1999
Smith v. Cajun Insulation, Inc., J.M.
Steed v. ST. PAUL'S UNITED METH. CHURCH 728 So. 2d 931 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
STATE, DEPT. OF SOCIAL SERVICES v. Robinson 718 So. 2d 609 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
Our jurisprudence is equally clear, however, that an action for nullity is not a substitute for an appeal from a default judgment, Smith v. Cajun Insulation, Inc., nor is it the solution to legal rights lost through one party's negligence or failure to act.
Rollins v. Glitsch Field Services, Inc. 713 So. 2d 674 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
Smith v. Cajun Insulation, Inc., Andre v. Construction Material Shop, 93-1212 (La.App.
Walters v. Isle of Capri Casino 711 So. 2d 335 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
23:1272 sets forth a mandatory and invariable guideline, which “creates an exception to other general statutory or jurisprudential rules of compromise and supersedes them in the area in which it is intended to operate.” Smith v. Cajun Insulation, Inc., (La.
Charles v. Lakeside National Bank 704 So. 2d 427 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
3 Cir. 3/6/96), , writ denied, 96-1315 (La.6/28/96), [quoting Smith v. Cajun Insulation, Inc., ].
State ex rel. Daley v. State 703 So. 2d 32 La. 1997
State Ex Rel. Daley v. State 703 So. 2d 32 La. 1997
Williams v. Guidry 701 So. 2d 964 La. 1997
Smith v. Terrell 699 So. 2d 74 La. 1997
Smith v. Terrell 699 So. 2d 74 La. 1997
Comm-Care Corp. v. Bishop 696 So. 2d 969 La. 1997
art. 13 and Smith v. Cajun Insulation, Inc.
Carriere v. St. Landry Parish Police Jury 693 So. 2d 1201 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
Smith v. Cajun Insulation, Inc.
Hayden v. New Orleans Baton Rouge Steamship Pilots Fee Commission 690 So. 2d 79 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
Furthermore, this interpretation comports with the generally accepted rule that “[w]hen two statutes are in conflict, the statute that is more specifically directed to the matter at issue must prevail as an exception to the statute that is more general.” Smith v. Cajun Insulation, Inc.
Reeves v. Louisiana State Probation & Parole 684 So. 2d 1112 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
Smith v. Cajun Insulation, Inc.
Gegenheimer v. Cajun Painting, Inc. 689 So. 2d 457 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
23:1272 is “virtually unassailable.” Smith v. Cajun Insulation, Inc.
Pappy's Investment Group of Lake Charles, Inc. v. City of Lake Charles 677 So. 2d 1145 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
Smith v. Cajun Insulation, Inc., State ex rel.
Alliance for Affordable Energy v. Council of New Orleans 677 So. 2d 424 La. 1996
1st Cir.1984) (citing Smith v. Cajun Insulation, Inc., ).
ALLIANCE FOR ENERGY v. Council 677 So. 2d 424 La. 1996
App. 1st Cir.1984) ( citing Smith v. Cajun Insulation, Inc., ).
City of Jennings Police Dept. v. Dorr 676 So. 2d 1128 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
See generally, Smith v. Cajun Insulation, Inc., and Townsend v. PPG Industries, Inc., (La.App.
Harrington v. Quality Steel Bldg. Erectors 670 So. 2d 1372 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
In Smith v. Cajun Insulation, Inc., [1] the Louisiana Supreme Court specifically held that the provision that a worker's compensation settlement could only be attacked for fraud or misrepresentation was only applicable when the mandatory guidelines for approval of a compensation settlement were met.
Comm-Care Corp. v. Bishop 673 So. 2d 212 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
La.Civ.Code art. 13; Smith v. Cajun Insulation, Inc., (La.
Custis v. Whitaker Const. 670 So. 2d 339 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
Smith v. Cajun Insulation, Inc.
St. Landry Parish Police Jury v. Zerangue 664 So. 2d 388 La. 1995
La.Civ.Code art. 10; Smith v. Cajun Insulation, Inc., (citations omitted).
Morris v. Reve, Inc. 662 So. 2d 525 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
Smith v. Cajun Insulation, Inc.
Twin Parish Port Com'n v. Berry Bros., Inc. 663 So. 2d 257 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
Smith v. Cajun Insulation, Inc., citing Melancon v. Mizell, 216 La.
Sellers v. St. Charles Parish 655 So. 2d 367 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
1987); Smith v. Cajun Insulation, Inc., (La.App.
State, Department of Social Services, Office of Family Support v. Ball 653 So. 2d 224 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
and citations therein; Sargent v. Louisiana Health Serv.
Morris v. East Baton Rouge Parish School Bd. 653 So. 2d 4 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
See Smith v. Cajun Insulation, Inc., (La.
Rimsky v. Currier 649 So. 2d 1248 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
Smith v. Cajun Insulation, Inc., and authorities therein; Sargent v. Louisiana Health Serv.
State v. ONE 1990 GMC SIERRA TRUCK 646 So. 2d 492 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
Smith v. Cajun Insulation, Inc., (La.App.
State v. Sanders 648 So. 2d 1272 La. 1994
Dupin v. Chambley 649 So. 2d 704 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
In construing the meaning of statutes, “courts must endeavor to give an interpretation that will give them effectiveness and purpose, rather than one which makes them meaningless.” Smith v. Cajun Insulation, Inc.
In Interest of CLS 649 So. 2d 532 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
[3] See Smith v. Cajun Insulation, Inc., State ex rel.
Harold v. La Belle Maison Apartments 643 So. 2d 752 La. 1994
Smith v. Cajun Insulation, Inc.
Goodwin v. Agrilite of Louisiana 643 So. 2d 249 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
1:3, 4; Smith v. Cajun Insulation, Inc., and authorities therein; Sargent v. Louisiana Health Serv.
In Matter of American Waste and Pollution Control Co. 642 So. 2d 1258 La. 1994
Smith v. Cajun Insulation, Inc., *1265
City of Zwolle v. Polk 643 So. 2d 201 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
Smith v. Cajun Insulation, Inc., State ex rel.
Horton v. State Farm Ins. Co. 641 So. 2d 993 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
Smith v. Cajun Insulation, Inc., Sargent v. La.