DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Everything on Wheels Subaru, Inc. v. Subaru South, Inc., 616 So. 2d 1234.

559 citing documents.

  • Labbe v. Chemical Waste Management, Inc. 756 So. 2d 613 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
    4 Cir. 5/16/95); , quoting Everything on Wheels Subaru, Inc. v. Subaru South, Inc.
  • Guidry v. First Nat. Bank of Commerce 755 So. 2d 1033 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
    Everything on Wheels Subaru, Inc. v. Subaru South, Inc., (footnote omitted).
  • Jones v. Tezeno 758 So. 2d 896 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
    Everything on Wheels Subaru
  • Landry v. Les Fontaine Funeral Home, Inc. 755 So. 2d 901 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    The judgment provided that barring such an amendment, “the action shall be dismissed.” Although the supreme court, in Everything on Wheels Subaru, Inc. v. Subaru South, Inc., , explained that “[a] judgment maintaining an exception of no cause of action and dismissing the action completely is a final judgment which is appealable!,]” the judgment sustaining the exception in this case was not immediately followed with a judgment of dismissal at the lapse of the thirty day period.
  • Harp v. PINE BLUFF AND SAND GRAVEL CO. 750 So. 2d 226 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
    Everything on Wheels Subaru, Inc. v. Subaru South, Inc.
  • Thompson v. Harrington 746 So. 2d 652 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
    See Everything on Wheels Subaru, Inc. v. Subaru South, Inc., Kahn v. Jones, 95-259 (La.App.
  • Arledge v. Sherrill 738 So. 2d 1215 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    Everything on Wheels Subaru
  • Ansalve v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 737 So. 2d 948 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    Everything on Wheels Subaru, Inc. v. Subaru South, Inc., (footnote omitted).
  • Keller v. McElveen 744 So. 2d 643 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    the Louisiana Supreme Court explained that an exception of no cause of action is used to “test the legal sufficiency of the petition by determining whether the law affords a remedy on the facts alleged in the pleading.” As La.Code Civ.P.
  • Lane Memorial Hosp. v. Watson 734 So. 2d 28 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    Everything on Wheels Subaru, Inc. v. Subaru South, Inc.
  • Giuffria v. Metro Bank 735 So. 2d 941 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    Everything On Wheels Subaru, Inc. v. Subaru South, Inc.
  • Rogers v. Avoyelles Parish School Board 736 So. 2d 303 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    Everything on Wheels Subaru, Inc. v. Subaru South, Inc.
  • Louisiana Clinic v. Patin's Tire Service 731 So. 2d 525 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
    Everything on Wheels Subaru, Inc. v. Subaru S., Inc.
  • DESIRE NARCOTICS REHAB. CENTER v. White 732 So. 2d 144 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
    E.g., Everything On Wheels Subaru
  • Roshto v. Brown 741 So. 2d 74 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    3 Cir. 1/31/96) ; ; writ denied, 96-0570 (La.12/13/96); ; Everything on Wheels Subaru, Inc. v. Subaru South, Inc.
  • Berthelot v. Travelers Insurance Co. 735 So. 2d 692 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    4 Cir. 8/20/97) , , unit denied 97-2350 (La.12/12/97), ; (citing Everything on Wheels Subaru, Inc. v. Subaru South, Inc., (La.
  • Hunter v. Tensas Nursing Home 738 So. 2d 27 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    See Everything on Wheels Subaru, Inc. v. Subaru South, Inc.
  • In Re Succession of Grimmett 738 So. 2d 27 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    See Everything on Wheels Subaru, Inc. v. Subaru South, Inc.
  • Milling, Benson, Woodward, Hillyer, Pierson & Miller L.L.P. v. American Marine Holding Co. 729 So. 2d 139 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    Everything on Wheels Subaru
  • Carber v. Carber 729 So. 2d 699 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    Everything on Wheels Subaru, Inc. v. Subaru South, Inc.
  • Montgomery v. Lobman, Carnahan, Batt & Angelle 729 So. 2d 1075 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
    Everything on Wheels Subaru, Inc. v. Subaru South, Inc.
  • Jackson v. America's Favorite Chicken Co. 729 So. 2d 1060 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
    [3] Further, the court held that because decisive legal questions were at issue, the current appeal would be permitted to go forward, rather than contribute to the "intolerable problems of multiple appeals and piecemeal litigation", Everything on Wheels Subaru, Inc. v. Subaru South, Inc.
  • Caldwell Wholesale Co. v. Central Oil & Supply Corp. 731 So. 2d 305 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    In Everything on Wheels Subaru, Inc. v. Subaru South, Inc., the Louisiana Supreme Court stated that if all judgments that adjudicated fewer than all claims or defenses, or adjudicated the claims or defenses of one or more but less than all the parties were immediately appealable, “there would be intolerable problems of multiple appeals and piecemeal litigation.” Sim
  • Taylor v. Shoney's, Inc. 726 So. 2d 519 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
    Everything on Wheels Subaru, Inc. v. Subaru [South], Inc., et al., Lybrand v. Newman, Drolla, Mathis, Brady & Wakefield, 95-9 (La.App.
  • Prestage v. Clark 723 So. 2d 1086 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    Everything On Wheels Subaru, Inc. v. Subaru South, Inc.
  • Krebs v. Mull 727 So. 2d 564 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    Everything on Wheels Subaru, Inc. v. Subaru South, Inc.
  • Vallier v. Louisiana Health Systems, Inc. 722 So. 2d 418 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
    Everything on Wheels v. Subaru S., Inc.
  • Johns v. Jaramillo 724 So. 2d 255 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
    It thus appears that permitting the current *258 appeal on the decisive legal issues of the case will serve the interests of justice, rather than contribute to the "intolerable problems of multiple appeals and piecemeal litigation" denounced in Everything on Wheels Subaru, Inc. v. Subaru South, Inc.
  • Thorne v. Doe 724 So. 2d 242 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
  • Gorvine v. Travelers Insurance Companies 724 So. 2d 248 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    Everything On Wheels Subaru, Inc. v. Subaru South, Inc., Vogt v. Board of Levee Commissioners of the Orleans Levee District, 95-1187 (La.App.
  • Simmons v. Templeton 723 So. 2d 1009 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
    Everything on Wheels Subaru, Inc. v. Subaru South, Inc., (La.
  • Perere v. Louisiana Television Broadcasting Corp. 721 So. 2d 1075 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    Everything on Wheels Subaru, Inc. v. Subaru South, Inc.
  • McDonald v. City of Bastrop 720 So. 2d 1256 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
    art. 931; Everything On Wheels Subaru, Inc. v. Subaru South, Inc., Bell v. Tensas Parish School Board, 29,279 (La.App.2d Cir.02/26/97), .
  • McKenzie v. LeBlanc 719 So. 2d 710 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    OPINION As stated by the supreme court in Everything on Wheels Subaru, Inc. v. Subaru South, Inc., “[t]he function of an exception of no cause of action is to test the legal sufficiency of the petition by determining whether the law affords a remedy on the facts alleged in the pleading.” The reviewing court must accept the well-pleaded allegations of fact as true, and the only issue is whether, “on
  • Hardy v. Bowie 719 So. 2d 1158 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
    Everything on Wheels Subaru, Inc. v. Subaru S., Inc., (La.
  • CLK COMPANY, LLC v. CXY Energy Inc. 719 So. 2d 1098 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
    Everything on Wheels Subaru, Inc. v. Subaru South, Inc., -39 (La.
  • Talbot v. C & C MILLWORKS, INC. 715 So. 2d 153 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    1st Cir. 11/19/97), -142 , this court, applying the rationale of Everything On Wheels Subaru, Inc. v. Subaru South, Inc., reasoned that the partial grant of an exception of no right of action which does not dismiss a party may be permissible, although not immediately appealable, where the cause of action attacked by the exception of no right of action is factually distinct and separate from the remaining cause or causes of act
  • Arledge v. Hendricks 715 So. 2d 135 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
    Montalvo, supra ; Everything on Wheels Subaru, (La.
  • Hailey v. Hickingbottom 715 So. 2d 647 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
  • Squyres v. NATIONWIDE HOUSING SYSTEMS 715 So. 2d 538 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
  • Berman v. De Chazal 717 So. 2d 658 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
    As stated in Everything On Wheels Subaru, Inc. v. Subaru South Inc. if all partial judgments relating to only some claims or defenses or less than all parties were routinely appealed, "there would be intolerable problems of multiple appeals and piecemeal litigation."
  • Graf v. Jim Walter Homes, Inc. 713 So. 2d 682 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    Everything On Wheels Subaru, Inc. v. Subaru South, Inc.
  • Webb Const., Inc. v. City of Shreveport 714 So. 2d 119 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
  • West v. Hilton Hotels Corp. 714 So. 2d 179 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    Everything on Wheels Subaru, Inc. v. Subaru South, Inc.
  • Mata v. Mata 712 So. 2d 252 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
    Everything on Wheels Subaru, Inc. v. Subaru South, Inc., Dufour v. Westlawn Cemeteries, Inc., 94-81 (La.App.
  • Devers v. Southern University 712 So. 2d 199 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    Montalvo v. Sondes, 637 So.2d at 131 ; Everything on Wheels Subaru, Inc., v. Subaru South, (La.
  • Leon v. Deters Custom Homes, Inc. 711 So. 2d 346 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    Everything On Wheels Subaru, Inc. v. Subaru South, Inc.
  • Richey v. Fetty 715 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    In Everything on Wheels Subaru, Inc. v. Subaru South, Inc., -1239 (La.1993), the Louisiana Supreme Court discussed the concepts of "cause of action," "civil action" and "cumulation of actions."
  • Banks v. State Farm Ins. Co. 708 So. 2d 523 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
    *525 Everything on Wheels Subaru
  • Casey v. Hibernia Corp. 709 So. 2d 933 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998