Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Vermilion Corp. v. Vaughn, 397 So. 2d 490.

265 citing documents.

Saunders v. Howell Petroleum Corp. 499 So. 2d 471 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
Planters Trust & Sav. Bank v. L & W FARMS, INC. 496 So. 2d 1268 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
Cannon v. Insured Lloyds 499 So. 2d 978 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
Mouton v. Guillory 494 So. 2d 1374 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
Cockerham v. Winn Parish Police Jury 494 So. 2d 1306 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
Kirkpatrick v. Great Central Life Insurance Co. 490 So. 2d 451 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Hastings v. International Service Ins. Co. 490 So. 2d 656 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
Peters v. CHARITY HOSP. OF LA. 490 So. 2d 505 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
Wilson v. HJ Wilson Co., Inc. 492 So. 2d 54 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Thibodeaux v. Southwest La. Hosp. Ass'n 488 So. 2d 743 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
Fayard v. Contifleeting, Inc. 488 So. 2d 1269 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
City Bank & Trust Co. v. New Iberia Hotel Partners 486 So. 2d 1201 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
and stated that: “A motion for summary judgment is properly granted only if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to material fact, and that mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law
American Bank & Trust Co. in Monroe v. Cambre 486 So. 2d 1076 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
Pace v. Zilka 484 So. 2d 771 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Thebner v. Xerox Corp. 480 So. 2d 454 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
Thornhill v. Black, Sivalls & Bryson, Inc., supra
Chalmers Corp. v. Carnell 479 So. 2d 990 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
Hughes v. Grant 479 So. 2d 35 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Bonstill v. Goldsberry Operating Co. 478 So. 2d 729 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
as follows: "`A motion for summary judgment is properly granted only if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to material fact, and that mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Crochet v. HOSP. SERV. DIST. NO. 1, ETC. 476 So. 2d 516 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Hemphill v. State Farm Ins. Co. 472 So. 2d 320 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
Head & Engquist Equipment, Inc. v. Aquatic Equipment & Engineering, Inc. 471 So. 2d 1062 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Further, “inferences to be drawn from the underlying facts contained in the materials before the court must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion.”
Equipment, Inc. v. Anderson Petroleum, Inc. 471 So. 2d 1068 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
rehearing denied; Davis v. Copeland Enterprises, Inc.
Carter v. Dr. Pepper Bottling Co. 470 So. 2d 496 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
the Louisiana Supreme Court discussed the consideration to be given affidavits which do not conform to formal requirements and stated: The failure of the opposing affiants to affirmatively show that their statements were made on personal knowledge does not prevent judicial consideration of their affida
Green v. DeFelice 466 So. 2d 1373 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
Bill Partin Jewelry, Inc. v. Smith 467 So. 2d 188 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
Ordner v. Fire Ins. Co. of Quaker City 467 So. 2d 619 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
Heater v. Texas Gas & Exploration Corp. 466 So. 2d 504 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
Rhines v. Carpenter 465 So. 2d 884 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
Pisarello v. Administrator's Service Corp. 464 So. 2d 917 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
Holmes v. St. Charles General Hosp. 465 So. 2d 117 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
Carroll v. Newtron, Inc. 477 So. 2d 719 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. M & a FARMS, LTD. 462 So. 2d 1323 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
Mumphrey v. Rollins 468 So. 2d 580 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Holley v. Palermo 461 So. 2d 539 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
Sosa v. Chandler Machine Co. 459 So. 2d 709 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
Bank of New Orleans v. Monco Agency, Inc. 457 So. 2d 221 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
the Supreme Court outlined the general rules regarding summary judgment procedure: A motion for summary judgment is properly granted only if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to ma
AMERICAN BK. & TRUST CO. v. Sunbelt Environmental 451 So. 2d 1111 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
Dupuy v. Gonday 450 So. 2d 1014 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
Concrete Post-Tensioning v. Armco, Inc. 449 So. 2d 712 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
Richard v. Weill Const. Co., Inc. 446 So. 2d 943 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
State in Interest of Bartee 446 So. 2d 512 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
Thomas v. Advance Mortgage Corp. 445 So. 2d 1302 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
Whitney v. Mallet 442 So. 2d 1361 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
Ledbetter v. Myers 438 So. 2d 700 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
Fallo v. Tuboscope Inspection, Intracoastal Pipe Repair & Supply Co. 435 So. 2d 1033 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
ovides that the “motion for summary judgment is properly granted only if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and 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 entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Dixie Campers, Thornhill v. Black, Sivalls & Bryson, Inc., Cates v. Beauregard Electric Cooperative, Inc., (Emphasis added) In this regard, the jurisprudence holds that only when reaso
Butler v. K-Mart Corp. 432 So. 2d 968 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
Marzula v. White 431 So. 2d 858 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
Bartlett v. Calhoun 430 So. 2d 1358 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
the Supreme Court discussed the consideration to be given affidavits which do not conform to formal requirements.
Brazzell v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. 433 So. 2d 779 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
Mindful of the strict standard of proof defendants are required to meet to affirm summary judgments, we have carefully examined the testimony relied on by appellant that the deceased drew on partnership funds during the performance of one job (not involved here) and the argued inference that this was a practice suggesting the deceased received some remuneration in addition to his share of the profits.
Richards v. Daniels 430 So. 2d 779 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1983

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by