DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Sibley v. Bd. of Sup'rs of Louisiana State University, 477 So. 2d 1094.

168 citing documents.

  • Succession of Clinton Cameron Schreiber La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2024
  • GANNETT RIVER STATES PUBLISHING CORPORATION D/B/A DAILY ADVERTISER VERSUS 15TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY DONALD D. LANDRY La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2023
    State Univ., Broussard v. F. A. Richard & Assocs., Inc. 98-1167 (La.App.
  • State of Louisiana v. Hunter Fussell La. 2019
  • Larry Bize, Sr. and Michelle R. Bize v. Malcolm Larvadain La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
    State Univ., (La.1985) expressly held that “the federal three level system is an inappropriate model for equal protection analysis under the Louisiana Constitution.” Instead, the state supreme court declared: Article I, Section 3 commands the courts to decline enforcement of a legislative classificatio
  • Bize v. Larvadain 263 So. 3d 584 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
    1105 (La.1985) expressly held that "the federal three level system is an inappropriate model for equal protection analysis under the Louisiana Constitution."
  • Leger v. Leger 258 So. 3d 624 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
  • Michael J. Leger, II v. Danielle Gotreaux Leger La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
    art. 1, § 3,] unless the state or other advocate of the classification shows that the classification has a reasonable basis.” Beauclaire, 922 So.2d at 505 ().
  • Hoston v. Richland Parish Hospital Service District 1-B 218 So. 3d 236 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2017
    They cite to the Louisiana Supreme Court’s summary of a hospital’s (La.
  • Estelle v. Eysinki 147 So. 3d 1136 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    of Sup’rs of Louisiana State Univ.
  • Johnson v. Motiva Enterprises LLC 128 So. 3d 483 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    the Supreme Court set forth the criteria to determine whether an equal protection violation has occurred: Article I, Section 3 commands the courts to decline enforcement of a legislative classification of individuals in three different situations: (1) When the law classifies individuals by race or religious
  • Susan Arrington, Etc. v. Er Physician Group, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    (on rehearing), the trial court conducted an April 2011 evidentiary hearing in order to consider the constitutional challenges posed by the cases, now consolidated.2 The trial court determined that La.R.S.
  • Arrington v. ER Physician Group, Inc. 110 So. 3d 193 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    ^ (on rehearing), the trial court conducted an April 2011 eviden-tiary hearing in order to consider the constitutional challenges posed by the cases, now consolidated.
  • Papania v. State ex rel. Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University 108 So. 3d 256 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    Sibley v. Board of Sup’rs of Louisiana State University, (“Sibley I”).
  • Shreveport Police Officers Ass'n v. Glover 108 So. 3d 791 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
    of Supervisors of LSU, Morgan v. City of Shreveport, 46,362 (La.App.2d Cir.7/13/11), .
  • Boudreaux v. Larpenter 110 So. 3d 159 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    1 the supreme court set forth a three-tier evaluation to determine whether there had been a violation of equal protection, as follows: Article I, Section 3 commands the courts to decline enforcement of a legislative classification of individuals in three different situations: (1) When the law classifies
  • Oliver v. MAGNOLIA CLINIC 85 So. 3d 39 La. 2012
  • Joe Oliver v. Magnolia Clinic La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    We reject the positions of the PCF and Nurse Duhon and find, (commonly referred to as Sibley II), that the MMA’s cap on general damage awards unconstitutionally disadvantages and discriminates against Taylor and her parents, victims of nurse Duhon’s malpractice, because of the severity -1- of Taylor’s physical condition
  • Oliver v. MAGNOLIA CLINIC 71 So. 3d 1170 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    We reject the positions of the PCF and Nurse Duhon and find, (commonly referred to as Sibley II), that the MMA’s cap on general damage awards unconstitutionally disadvantages and discriminates against Taylor and her parents, victims of nurse Duhon’s malpractice, because of the severity |2of Taylor’s physical condition when compared to other malpractice victims who rec
  • Russo v. Kraus 52 So. 3d 876 La. 2011
    In light of the defendants’ stipulation to the latency of Janice Russo’s disease and this Court’s prior findings concerning the existence of a medical malpractice insurance crisis in the 1970s, the Court of Appeal erred in reversing the District Court’s judgment and remanding this matter for a hearing on these issues.
  • Deer Enterprises, LLC v. Parish Council of Washington Parish 56 So. 3d 936 La. 2011
  • Joe Oliver v. Magnolia Clinic La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
    We also find, as the Supreme Court similarly held in Sibley v. Board of Sup’vrs of Louisiana State Univ., (commonly referred to as Sibley II), that the MMA’s cap on general damage awards unconstitutionally disadvantages and discriminates against Taylor and her parents, victims of nurse Duhon’s malpractice, because of the severity of Taylor’s physical condition when compared to other malpractice victims who r
  • Oliver v. Magnolia Clinic 51 So. 3d 874 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    We also find, as the Supreme Court similarly held in Sibley v. Board of Sup’vrs of Louisiana State Univ., (La.
  • Russo v. Kraus 49 So. 3d 941 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    See Whitnell, 686 So.2d at 30
  • Douglas v. Children's Hospital 69 So. 3d 434 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
  • Rhone v. Ward 31 So. 3d 591 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
    Sibley v. Board of Sup’vrs of Louisiana State Univ.
  • State ex rel. A.J. 27 So. 3d 247 La. 2009
    of Supervisors, (on reh’g) ] in regard to age classifications, the state must show: 1.
  • In Re State Ex Rel. AJ 27 So. 3d 247 La. 2009
  • Reed v. St. Charles General Hospital 11 So. 3d 1138 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    d erred in two respects: first it had failed to allow the plaintiffs an opportunity to amend their petition to plead facts “relating to the third category of contra non valentem, as well as to add additional parties or cause of action”; and, second, it had failed “to hold the requisite evidentiary hearing (requested by Mrs. Reed) ” Reed, 602 So.2d at 786 .
  • Tipton v. Campbell 996 So. 2d 27 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
    State University, constitutional analysis."
  • State v. Anderson 996 So. 2d 973 La. 2008
    Age classification review applies the intermediate scrutiny standard adopted in Sibley v. Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State *1011 University, -08 (La.
  • Ferguson v. Sugar 988 So. 2d 816 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
    CPCLA was a wholly owned subsidiary CPC Inc. [2] (La.
  • State v. Granger 982 So. 2d 779 La. 2008
    of Sup'rs of Louisiana State Univ., Louisiana Associated Gen.
  • Burmaster v. Plaquemines Parish Government 982 So. 2d 795 La. 2008
  • Explained City of New Orleans v. ASSESSORS'RETIREMENT AND RELIEF FUND 986 So. 2d 1 La. 2008
    this court set forth the proper analysis for determining whether an equal protection violation has occurred.
  • Arrington v. Galen-Med, Inc. 970 So. 2d 540 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
  • Susan Arrington, Etc. v. Er Physicians Group, Apmc La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    In the interest of “doing the right thing,” we simply cannot abandon the analytical method of review followed by our Supreme Court in Sibley v. Board of Supr’s of Louisiana, (on rehearing), to achieve a more desirable 2 remedy for an admittedly disadvantaged class of injured victims.
  • Arrington v. ER PHYSICIANS GROUP, APMC. 940 So. 2d 777 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    In the interest of "doing the right thing," (on rehearing), to achieve a more desirable remedy for an admittedly disadvantaged class of injured victims.
  • Beauclaire v. Greenhouse 922 So. 2d 501 La. 2006
    this court enunciated a three-tier evaluation to determine whether there was a violation of equal protection.
  • Rhone v. Ward 902 So. 2d 1258 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
    the supreme court addressed the legislative classifications and applicable burdens of proof in equal protection challenges.
  • Walker v. Bossier Medical Center 902 So. 2d 1228 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
  • Sanders v. Silverthorn 906 So. 2d 518 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
  • Criticized State v. EXPUNGED RECORD NO. 249,044 881 So. 2d 104 La. 2004
    Of Sup'rs of Louisiana State U., , (La.1985) this court joined a growing number of state *110 courts [4] and criticized the three-tier level of equal protection analysis employed by the federal courts.
  • Albright v. Southern Trace Country Club 879 So. 2d 121 La. 2004
    Almost 20 years ago, -1108 (La.
  • Detillier v. Kenner Regional Medical Center 877 So. 2d 100 La. 2004
  • Walker v. Bossier Medical Center 873 So. 2d 841 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
  • Messina v. St. Charles Parish Council 865 So. 2d 158 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
    of Supervisors of Louisiana State University
  • Landry v. Leonard J. Chabert Med. Ctr. 858 So. 2d 454 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
  • Louisiana Electorate of Gays & Lesbians, Inc. v. State 833 So. 2d 1016 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    of Supervisors of Louisiana State Univ., reh’g denied, this court set forth the analysis required by the state’s equal protection guarantee in the face of a legislative classification.
  • Lee v. Pennington 830 So. 2d 1037 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
    and Mechanical College, the court provided guidance when analyzing a legislative classification: Article I, Section 3 commands the courts to decline enforcement of a legislative classification of individuals in three different situations: (1) When the law classifies individuals by race or religious beliefs, it shall be repudiated
  • Plaquemines Parish v. RIVER/ROAD CONST. 828 So. 2d 16 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
    that Louisiana, in Article I, Section 3 of its constitution, rejected the federal three-tiered system of equal protection analysis.