Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Penalber v. Blount, 550 So. 2d 577.

353 citing documents.

Vagelos v. Abramson 126 So. 3d 639 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
for instance, the Louisiana Supreme Court held that an attorney may be held liable to a non-client for intentional tortious conduct; however, no cause of action could lie in favor of a non-client based on theories of negligence or malpractice because an attorney owes no duty to his client’s adversary.
Peironnet v. Matador Resources Co. 144 So. 3d 791 La. 2013
Stewart Title of Louisiana v. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. 112 So. 3d 949 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
*953 583 (La.1989); Coto v. J. Ray McDermott, S.A., 99-1866, p. 4 (La.App.
Blanchard v. Blanchard 112 So. 3d 243 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
the supreme court addressed a situation in which the Livingston Parish Police Jury had filed an action against an adversary’s attorney, alleging that the attorney had knowingly violated statutory and constitutional prohibitions against seizure of public assets by seizing its property after intentionall
John Paul Sapir, LLC v. Yum! Brands, Inc. 106 So. 3d 646 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Cypress Bend Investments, LLC v. Louisiana First Financial Group, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
Billups v. B.C. Enterprise Group, Inc. 104 So. 3d 577 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Cypress Bend Investments, L.L.C. v. Louisiana First Financial Group, Inc. 105 So. 3d 805 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Ann Anderson v. Rapides Parish Police Jury La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
Merwin v. Spears 90 So. 3d 1041 La. 2012
(holding summary judgment is “rarely appropriate for a determination based on subjective facts such as intent, motive, malice, knowledge or good faith”).
Nelwin Rider v. Jack Stansberry La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
Rider v. Stansberry 87 So. 3d 989 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
D'Angelo v. Guarino 88 So. 3d 683 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Read v. Willwoods Community 88 So. 3d 534 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Oubre v. Louisiana Citizens Fair Plan 79 So. 3d 987 La. 2011
Brandon Jagneaux v. Ronald R. Frohn La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
Jagneaux v. Frohn 74 So. 3d 309 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
Succession of Carroll 72 So. 3d 384 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
Berry v. Volunteers of America, Inc. 64 So. 3d 347 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2011
Katina Maria Guidry v. Glazer's Distributors of Louisiana, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
“Summary judgment is seldom appropriate for determinations based on subjective facts, such as motive, intent, good faith, knowledge and malice.” Smith, 639 So.2d at 751 ().
Guidry v. Glazer's Distributors of Louisiana, Inc. 49 So. 3d 586 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
“Summary judgment is seldom appropriate for determinations based on subjective facts, such as motive, intent, good faith, knowledge and malice.” Smith, 639 So.2d at 751 ().
Robbie Payne v. Brett Gardner La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
Robbie Payne v. Brett Gardner La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
Payne v. Gardner 49 So. 3d 1013 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Willie J. Zeno, Sr. v. Charles J. Foret La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
Jane Doe v. Scott M. Hawkins La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
Louisiana law recognizes that an “attorney’s paramount duty is[, and must be,] to his client.”
Doe v. Hawkins 42 So. 3d 1000 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Louisiana law recognizes that an “attorney’s paramount duty is[, and must be,] to his client.”
EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH SEWERAGE COMMISSION v. Banks 34 So. 3d 1166 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Ryan William Price v. Randy J. Fuerst La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
Even if we were to conclude a de facto attorney-client relationship existed between Miller and Michael’s ex-wife, “no cause of action lies in favor of a non-client under theories of malpractice and negligence because the 3 attorney owes no duty to the adversary of his client.” In cases where the courts have recognized a cause of action against an atto
Price v. Fuerst 24 So. 3d 289 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Even if we were to conclude a de facto attorney-client relationship existed between Miller and Michael’s ex-wife, “no cause of action lies in favor of a non-client under theories of malpractice and negligence because the 14 attorney owes no duty to the adversary of his client.” In cases where the courts have recognized a cause of action against an attorney in favor of a non-client or a third-party beneficiary under
Teague v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co. 10 So. 3d 806 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
See Montalvo v. Sondes, 93-2813, pp. 3-4 (La.5/23/94)
Price v. Tenneco Oil Co. 996 So. 2d 1260 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
Curtis Price v. Tenneco Oil Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
“A ‘fact’ is material if its existence or nonexistence may be essential to plaintiff’s cause of action under the applicable theory of recovery.”
Johnson v. Folse 986 So. 2d 110 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
Elta Moss v. Winfred Thomas Barrett III La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
: “[N]ot even the Rules of Professional Conduct create actionable duties for negligent injury of a client’s adversary or negligent breach of professional obligations which might run in favor of his client’s adversary.” No Cause of Action However, because Moss is pursuing this action pro se,1 w
Moss v. Barrett 977 So. 2d 310 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
: "[N]ot even the Rules of Professional Conduct create actionable duties for negligent injury of a client's adversary or negligent breach of professional obligations which might run in favor of his client's adversary."
Ruben v. Aragon v. Frederick W. Chapman La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
Inc., 93-2512 (La.7/5/94)
Aragon v. Chapman 967 So. 2d 597 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
Inc., 93-2512 (La.7/5/94)
Brookewood v. Sixty-Three Twenty-Four 958 So. 2d 1200 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2007
Frank L. Maraist and Thomas C. Galligan, Jr., Louisiana Tort Law, § 5.07[7](2nd ed. 2006)().
Waldrip v. Ly 954 So. 2d 856 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
for the proposition that summary judgment is rarely appropriate for determinations based on subjective facts.
Atkins v. Eastover Realty, Inc. 954 So. 2d 200 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
that a fact is material “if its existence or nonexistence may be essential to plaintiffs cause of action under the ap *202 plicable theory of recovery.” Furthermore, “[f]acts are ‘material’ if they potentially insure or preclude recovery, affect a litigant’s ultimate success, or determine the outcome o
Scheffler v. Adams and Reese, LLP 950 So. 2d 641 La. 2007
Harris v. State ex rel. Department of Public Safety & Corrections 950 So. 2d 795 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
Material facts are those that potentially insure or preclude recovery, affect the litigant’s ultimate success, or determine the outcome of a legal dispute.” BellSouth, 96-0682 at p. 3, 690 So.2d at 148 ().
In Re Succession of Polk 940 So. 2d 895 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Succession of Juliette Bijou Polk La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Explained Istre v. Meche 931 So. 2d 361 La. 2006
Billy L. Reed and Teresa Reed v. American Equity Insurance Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Reed v. AMERICAN EQUITY INSURANCE CO. 927 So. 2d 1210 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Arabella Bus Barn, L.L.C. v. Whole Foods Market, Inc. 928 So. 2d 675 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
Block v. Bernard, Cassisa, Elliott & Davis 927 So. 2d 339 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
the court reaffirmed the following general principle of our law: Louisiana subscribes to the traditional, majority view that an attorney does not owe a legal duty to his client's adversary when acting in his client's behalf.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by