Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Simoneaux v. EI Du Pont De Nemours and Co., Inc., 483 So. 2d 908.

118 citing documents.

Ploue v. Intercoastal Financial Group, Inc. 9 So. 3d 356 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
du Pont de Nemours and Co., Inc., (La.
Fletcher v. Wendelta, Inc. 999 So. 2d 1223 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
du Pont de Nemours and Co., Lacure v. Brookshire's Stores, 38,627 (La.
Advanced Products & Systems, Inc. v. Gary Simon La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
du Pont de Nemours and Co., Inc., -13 (La.
Advance Products & Systems, Inc. v. Simon 944 So. 2d 788 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
du Pont de Nemours and Co., Inc., -13 (La.
Petch v. Humble 939 So. 2d 499 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc.
Wilson v. Ochsner Foundation Hosp. 927 So. 2d 696 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
du Pont de Nemours and Co., Inc., .
Freddie Mae Young v. Harry J. Mobley, M.D. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
du Pont de Nemours and Co., Inc.
Young v. Mobley 923 So. 2d 917 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
du Pont de Nemours and Co., Inc.
Jackson v. Home Depot, Inc. 906 So. 2d 721 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
du Pont de Nemours and Co., Inc.
Bass Partnership v. Fortmayer 899 So. 2d 68 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
du Pont de Nemours and Co., -13 (La.1986); Butzman v. Louisiana Power and Light Co., 96-2073, p. 4 (La.App.
Thomas v. North 40 Land Development, Inc. 894 So. 2d 1160 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
du Pont de Nemours and Co., -13 (La.1986).
Lacure v. Brookshire's Stores 877 So. 2d 264 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
du Pont de Nemours and Co., Inc., Berzas v. OXY USA, Inc., 29,835 (La.App.2d Cir.9/24/97), .
Jones v. Estate of Santiago 870 So. 2d 1002 La. 2004
du Pont de Nemours and Company, Inc., (The court held that summary judgment is an appropriate method for disposing of a case wherein intent is a critical question if conclusory statements of a plaintiff are insufficient *1007 to support a finding of intent by reasonable minds.).
Williams v. Memorial Medical Center 870 So. 2d 1044 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
du Pont de Nemours and Co., (La.
Leake & Andersson v. Sia Ins. Co. 868 So. 2d 967 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
du Pont de Nemours and Co., Inc.
Vanderbrook v. Coachmen Industries, Inc. 818 So. 2d 906 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
du Pont de Nemours and Company, Inc.
Weathersby v. Jacquet 813 So. 2d 1135 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
duPont de *1139 Nemours and Co., Inc., (La.
Haney v. Delta Petroleum Co., Inc. 811 So. 2d 1200 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
duPont de Nemours and Co., Inc.
Monts v. Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University 812 So. 2d 787 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
Doe v. ABC Corp. 790 So. 2d 136 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
du Pont de Nemours and Co. ., Inc.
Eichelberger v. Sidney 771 So. 2d 863 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
du Pont de Nemours and Co., Inc., (La.
Bonds v. Byrd 765 So. 2d 1205 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
du Pont de Nemours & Co.
Demopulos v. Jackson 765 So. 2d 480 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
du Pont de Nemours, (wherein the supreme court noted that the parties had, indeed, been given a fair opportunity to conduct discovery and to present their claims); Berzas v. OXY USA, 29,835 (La.App.2d Cir.09/24/97), (summary judgment was not denied where the plaintiffs had undertaken no discovery in the five year
Rumore v. Wamstad 751 So. 2d 452 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
du Pont de Nemours and Co., Inc.
Kelly v. West Cash & Carry Bldg. Materials 745 So. 2d 743 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
duPont de Nemours and Co., Inc., (La.App.
American Central Ins. Co. v. Hilman 744 So. 2d 190 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
du Pont De Nemours, (wherein the supreme court noted that the parties had, indeed, been given a fair opportunity to conduct discovery and to present their claims); Berzas v. OXY USA, 29,835 (La.App.2d Cir.09/24/97), (summary judgment was not denied where the plaintiffs had undertaken no discovery in the five year
Yarbrough v. Federal Land Bank 732 So. 2d 1244 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
du Punt de Nemours & Co., Berzas v. OXY USA Inc., 29,835 (La.App.
Mixon v. Davis 732 So. 2d 628 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
du Pont de Nemours & Co., Berzas v. OXY USA Inc., 29,835 (La.App.
Martin v. Stone Container Corp. 729 So. 2d 726 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
du Pont de Nemours & Co., Berzas v. OXY USA Inc., 29,835 (La.App.
Hillhouse v. River Parish Maintenance, Inc. 726 So. 2d 463 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
du Pont de Nemours and Co., Inc., and many other cases with similar holdings.
Smith v. General Motors Corp. 722 So. 2d 348 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
duPont de Nemours and Company, Inc., there is no absolute right to delay an action on a motion for summary judgment until discovery is complete.
Perricone v. East Jefferson General Hosp. 721 So. 2d 48 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
du Pont de Nemours, (La.
Berzas v. Oxy USA, Inc. 699 So. 2d 1149 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
duPont de Nemours and Company, Inc., there is no absolute right to delay an action on a motion for summary judgment until discovery is completed.
Barron v. Webb 698 So. 2d 727 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
du Pont de Nemours and Co., Inc.
Gaspard v. Orleans Parish School Bd. 688 So. 2d 1298 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
duPont de Nemours and Co., Inc., the Louisiana Supreme Court stated, There is no absolute right to delay action on a motion for summary judgment until discovery is completed.
Credeur v. McCullough 685 So. 2d 300 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
du Pont de Nemours and Co., (holding that “[sjummary judgment is an appropriate method for disposing of a ease wherein intent is a critical question”); (La.App.
Ferguson v. Joiner 667 So. 2d 1133 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
du Pont De Nemours & Co. Inc.
Snow v. Lenox Intern. 662 So. 2d 818 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
du Pont de Nemours and Company, (La.
Pryor v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 663 So. 2d 112 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Du Pont De Nemours and Co.
NAT. UNION FIRE INS. CO. v. Cagle 649 So. 2d 642 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
Smith v. OUR LADY OF LAKE HOSP. 639 So. 2d 730 La. 1994
du Pont de Nemours and Co., (holding that "[s]ummary judgment is an appropriate method for disposing of a case wherein intent is a critical question"); (La.
Smith v. Our Lady of the Lake Hospital, Inc. 639 So. 2d 730 La. 1994
du Pont de Nemours and Co., (holding that “[s]ummary judgment is an appropriate method for disposing of a case wherein intent is a critical question”); (La.App.
In re National Society of Health 637 So. 2d 691 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
du Pont de Nemours & Co.
Barker v. Whittington 628 So. 2d 237 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
du Pont de Nemours, (party opposing motion for summary judgment failed to set forth evidence demonstrating some genuine issue for trial exists).
Pylant v. Lofton 626 So. 2d 83 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
Arkla, Inc. v. Maddox and May Bros. Casing Service, Inc. 624 So. 2d 34 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
du Pont de Nemours & Co. Inc.
Smith v. Our Lady of the Lake Hosp., Inc. 624 So. 2d 1239 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
Armstead v. Schwegmann Giant Super Markets, Inc. 618 So. 2d 1140 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
Dupont De Nemours and Company, Inc., -13 (La.
Richoux v. Tulane Medical Center 617 So. 2d 13 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
Dusaules v. Centennial Insurance Co. 615 So. 2d 395 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
DuPont de Nemours, -13 (La.1986) (emphasis by the court).