Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Kellis v. Farber, 523 So. 2d 843.

49 citing documents.

Scott Vicknair, LLC v. Wayne Robinson La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2025
Rose Gant v. CNA Insurance Company, Philip A. Spence, LLC, and Phillip A. Spence La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2020
Lisa Jarreau v. Thomas E. Gibbs d/b/a The Law Office of Thomas Gibbs and Robert T. Talley La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2020
Guidry v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 263 So. 3d 943 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
See also Kellis v. Farber , , 848 (La.
Blow v. OneBeacon America Insurance Co. 193 So. 3d 244 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
” 7 Act 117 contains no expression of legislative intent as to whether it was to apply prospectively or retroactively.
Lopez v. Richard 30 So. 3d 1186 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
is also unpersuasive and is misplaced.
Gill B. Lopez and Diane Lopez v. Josette Richard La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
-3- Plaintiffs’ is also unpersuasive and is misplaced.
Green v. Auto Club Group Ins. Co. 994 So. 2d 701 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
22:655(B), which added the word "only,"
French Jordan, Inc. v. Travelers Ins. Co. 958 So. 2d 699 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2007
Kellis v. Farber, 87-2170, (La.1988), , superseded by statute on other grounds, Boatwright v. Metropolitan Life Ins., 95-2473 (La.App.
Colvin v. LOUISIANA PATIENT'S COMP. FUND 947 So. 2d 15 La. 2007
Spinosa v. Spinosa 934 So. 2d 35 La. 2006
Co., Inc., 95-1270, p. 1 (La.6/23/95), , quoting *49 (La.
Shaunn Caillier McCorvey v. Derriel Carlton McCorvey La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
art. 43: “The general rules of venue provided in Article 42 are subject to the exceptions provided in Articles 71 through 85 and otherwise provided by law.” See also, : “The Code of Civil Procedure provides a general rule of venue followed by various permissive and mandatory supplementary provisions.
McCorvey v. McCorvey 916 So. 2d 357 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
Louviere v. State 923 So. 2d 146 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
the Supreme Court held that the alternative, optional venue provisions contained in Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure articles 71 through 85 "are an extension, supplement and legal part of the provisions of article 42."
Amy Chesne v. Mark M. Mayeaux La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
the supreme court reiterated its interpretation of La.Code Civ.P.
Chesne v. Mayeaux 865 So. 2d 766 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
the supreme court reiterated its interpretation of La.Code Civ.P.
Bertucci v. Lafayette Ins. Co. 851 So. 2d 1179 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
wherein it was held that the plain meaning of Art. 43 allowed the venues provided for in arts.
Scarbrough v. J. Ray McDermott 833 So. 2d 436 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
art. 42, which provides various rules (based on the nature of the defendant) for venue at the defendant’s “home base.” Despite the departure from the “home base” “the defendant’s ‘home base’ still remains the starting point in the determination of where venue is proper, and in some cases is the only proper venue.” 1 Frank L. Maraist & Harry T. Lemmon, Louisiana Civil Law Treatise, Civil Procedure § 3.4 (1999).
White v. Beauregard Memorial Hosp. 809 So. 2d 1275 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
Deshautelle v. US Agencies Casualty Insurance Co. 808 So. 2d 433 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
we held that the plain meaning of art. 43 is that venues permitted in articles 71-85 and qtherwise permitted by law may be used to supplement the general venue provisions of article 42 whenever venue under article 42 is appropriate.
Cacamo v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. 764 So. 2d 41 La. 2000
Dempster v. A.P. Green Industries, Inc. 753 So. 2d 330 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
Cacamo v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. 746 So. 2d 793 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
More specifically, the defendants argue that Act 117 of 1989 [3] by excluding the permissive and mandatory exceptions to Article 42 when selecting venue in Direct Action lawsuits.
Gavin v. USAA Casualty Insurance 747 So. 2d 577 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
to make her an “insured” under Ms. Gavin’s policy, thus having the right to venue in Orleans Parish.
Underwood v. Lane Memorial Hosp. 714 So. 2d 715 La. 1998
Ausama v. Frontier Public Coach Tours, Inc. 712 So. 2d 653 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
Long Leaf Vending, Inc. v. La. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. 709 So. 2d 366 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
Jordan v. Central Louisiana Electric Co., Inc., 95-1270 (La.6/23/95)
RICHMOND EX REL. RICHMOND v. Dow 712 So. 2d 149 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
Jordan v. Central Louisiana Electric Co., Inc., 95-1270, p. 2 (La.6/23/95)
E. Sondheimer Co. v. Hibernia Corp. 704 So. 2d 386 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
stating the general civilian principle that "one must be sued before his own judge."
Hayden v. Gittens 704 So. 2d 927 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
Schiro v. Liljeberg Enterprises, Inc. 703 So. 2d 780 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1997
In support of his argument, for the proposition that exceptions to the general rule of venue, such as that which requires that a corporation must be sued in the parish where its principal business establishment is located, are no longer considered exceptions and should not be strictly construed.
Evans & Associates v. Corporate Personnel Services & Temps, Inc. 701 So. 2d 733 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
This case is controlled by Jordan v. Central Louisiana Electric Co., Inc., 95-C-1270 (La.6/23/95)
Barham v. Richard 692 So. 2d 1357 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
The court construed Article 76.1 as authorizing venue in any of the parishes in which the contract was executed and stated:
Prokop v. Mack Trucks, Inc. 694 So. 2d 387 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
The Supreme Court explained at 989:
Guaranty Bank of Mamou v. State 677 So. 2d 1109 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
Tucker v. Ochsner Health Plan 674 So. 2d 1052 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
Jordan, supra, at p. 2 , 656 So.2d at 989 , (La.
Rufus Boatwright v. Metropolitan Life Ins. 671 So. 2d 553 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
Declinatory exception of improper venue In its reasons for judgment overruling the declinatory exception of improper venue filed by the Avondale insurers, which, according to the trial court, specifically held that the Direct Action Statute's provision allowing venue under La.C.C.P.
McINNIS BROS. CONSTR., INC. v. PEOPLES WATER SERVICE CO. 666 So. 2d 1323 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
the court explained that Article 76.1 should no longer be strictly construed as was formerly required under Hawthorne Oil & Article 76.1 is no longer an exception to the general "home base" venue rule set forth in Article 42 but, instead, is part of
Operational Technologies Corp. v. Environmental Contractors, Inc. 665 So. 2d 14 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Jordan , 95-1270, at p. 2, 656 So.2d at 989
Jordan v. Central Louisiana Elec. Co., Inc. 656 So. 2d 988 La. 1995
Cantrelle v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 654 So. 2d 790 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Abshire v. State, Through Dept. of Ins. 636 So. 2d 627 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
Jones v. Massachusetts Bay Ins. Co. 614 So. 2d 262 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
Barracliff v. East Jefferson General Hospital 573 So. 2d 1200 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1991
Smith v. Flournoy, 238 La.
Jones v. Massachusetts Bay Insurance Co. 573 So. 2d 248 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
Boeck v. Performance Toyota of Louisiana 562 So. 2d 458 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1990
Rajnowski v. St. Patrick's Hosp. 564 So. 2d 671 La. 1990
Ross v. Schultz 542 So. 2d 125 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
wherein the supreme court held that the reference to LSA-C.C.P.
Neil v. Teledyne Movible Offshore, Inc. 530 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988