Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Hampton v. Greenfield, 618 So. 2d 859.

102 citing documents.

Rosenblat Properties, LLC v. Shweta Kohsmann La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2024
Brittany Price (Natural Mother) and Travis Merrill (Natural Father) Indiv and as Parents of Minor, Jameson Augustine Merrill … La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2024
3 Cir. 12/11/96), (); Dee v. Roman Catholic Church, 94-1476 (La.App.
Precept Credit Opportunities Fund, Lp v. Meta Hunter Dave, Joseph Bernard Dave, State of Louisiana, Division of Administration, … La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2023
Paul Lucky III v. Tierra M. Singleton Lucky La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2023
App. 4 Cir. 2/4/04), ( (La.
Stephen Swarthout v. Roger Driggers La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
In Re: Precept Credit Opportunities Fund, L.P. Praying for Monition Vs. La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2022
Pratimakone Aphaiyarath v. Lafayette City-Parish Consolidated Gov. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2021
“Appeals are always favored and, unless the appeal is unquestionably frivolous, damages will not be allowed.”
In Re: Succession of George J. Ackel, Jr. La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2020
However, the Supreme Court has explained that damages are not allowed unless the appeal is “unquestionably frivolous[.]” (La.
Coretta McMillon and Roosevelt Norman v. European Service, Inc., d/b/a European Motors and Ali Moghimi La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2020
In Re: Succession of Hazel Nell Moran Fogg La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2020
New Era Dev. Corp. v. Robert 263 So. 3d 497 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
However, the supreme court has explained that damages are not allowed unless the appeal is *505 "unquestionably frivolous[.]" Hampton v. Greenfield , , 862 (La.
Lobell v. Denn 263 So. 3d 437 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
See Hampton v. Greenfield , , 862 (La.
Kenneth Clark v. Walgreens Drugstore La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
4/27/01), this court stated with regard to frivolous appeal: “Appeals are always favored and, unless the appeal is unquestionably frivolous, damages will not be allowed.”
Clark v. Sedgwick CMS 247 So. 3d 850 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
Hampton v. Greenfield , , 862 (La.1993).
In re J.L.C.K. 238 So. 3d 559 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2018
However, the supreme court has explained that damages are not allowed unless the appeal is "unquestionably frivolous[.]" Hampton v. Greenfield , , 862 (La.
Willis v. Ean Holdings 218 So. 3d 177 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
Donald J. Pickney v. Andrew White La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
The supreme court, (alterations in original), stated: Under La.Code Civ.P.
Trahan v. Trahan 203 So. 3d 447 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
McDonald Enterprises, Inc. v. Age, 00-1938 (La.App.
Snyder v. Perilloux 198 So. 3d 237 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2016
Joseph v. Hartford Insurance 191 So. 3d 647 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
Although there is some merit in this request, appeals are always favored, and this court generally refrains from awarding damages for frivolous appeals against pro-se litigants.
R. Alan Kite v. Kite Bros. LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
3 Cir. 12/11/96), (); Doe v. Roman 19 Catholic Church, 94-1476 (La.App.
Kite Bros. LLC v. R. Alan Kite La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
3 Cir. 12/11/96), (); Doe v. Roman 19 Catholic Church, 94-1476 (La.App.
Kite v. Kite Bros., LLC 170 So. 3d 1184 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
3 Cir. 12/11/96) , (); Doe v. Roman Catholic Church, 94-1476 (La.App.
Kite Bros. LLC v. Kite Rv, LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
3 Cir. 12/11/96), (); Doe v. Roman Catholic Church, 94-1476 (La.App.
Kite Bros. LLC v. Kite RV, LLC 150 So. 3d 608 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
3 Cir. 12/11/96), (); Doe v. Roman Catholic Church, 94-1476 (La.App.
Shiell v. Chuan Jen Tsai 164 So. 3d 190 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Cox v. O'Brien 147 So. 3d 809 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
citing City of Shreveport v. U.S. Fid.
Akers v. Bernhard Mechanical Contractors, Inc. 137 So. 3d 818 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
David B. Trahan, II v. Wendell R. Verret La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
―Appeals are always favored and, unless the appeal is unquestionably frivolous, damages will not be allowed.‖
Cannatella v. Cougle 119 So. 3d 94 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
Landry v. Broussard 108 So. 3d 760 La. 2013
Paulsell v. State, Department of Transportation & Development 112 So. 3d 856 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
-64 (La.1993), missing from the statutory scheme outlined in La.
Percival Franklin v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
“Appeals are always favored and, unless the appeal is unquestionably frivolous, damages will not be allowed.”
Franklin v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car 104 So. 3d 720 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
“Appeals are always favored and, unless the appeal is unquestionably frivolous, damages will not be allowed.”
Scott Brame Moffett v. Lauren Lee Moffett La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
Moffett v. Moffett 67 So. 3d 1287 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
Frederick Kirk D/B/A Exactax v. Interface Security System, LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
“Appeals are always favored and, unless the appeal is unquestionably frivolous, damages will not be allowed.”
Isadore v. Interface Security Systems 58 So. 3d 1071 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
“Appeals are always favored and, unless the appeal is unquestionably frivolous, damages will not be allowed.”
Nicol E. Hannie v. Ray Allen Guidry La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
Hannie v. Guidry 48 So. 3d 396 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
3 Cir. 10/9/96) , , writ denied, 96-2709 (La.1/6/97), ().
Tee It Up Golf, L.L.C. v. Bayou State Construction, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
3 Cir. 12/11/96), (); Doe v. Roman Catholic Church, 94-1476 (La.App.
Tee It Up Golf, Inc. v. Bayou State Construction, L.L.C. 30 So. 3d 1159 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
3 Cir. 12/11/96) , (); Doe v. Roman Catholic Church, 94-1476 (La.App.
CANTUBA v. American Bureau of Shipping 31 So. 3d 397 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
art. 863 violation is necessarily limited to the trial court because “[ojnly a trial court is capable of holding the required art. 863 hearing where evidence may be presented on the sanctions issue.” Hampton, *406 862 (La.1993).
In Re Succession of Badeaux 12 So. 3d 348 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
art. 2164, which provides in pertinent part that “[t]he [appellate] court may award damages for frivolous appeal.” ANR Pipeline, 815 So.2d at 183 .
Lillie Mae Middleton v. City of Natchitoches La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
3 Cir. 12/11/96), (); Doe v. Roman Catholic Church, 94-1476 (La.App.
Middleton v. City of Natchitoches 954 So. 2d 356 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
3 Cir. 12/11/96) , (); Doe v. Roman Catholic Church, 94-1476 (La.App.
Heath v. McCarthy 948 So. 2d 363 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
Damages for frivolous appeal are authorized by Art. 2164, but are awarded only when “it is obvious that the appeal was taken solely for delay or that counsel is not sincere in the view of law he advocates even though the court is of the opinion that such view is not meritorious.” Hampton v. Greenfield, 92-2770 (La.5/24/93), ; Black v. Lofland Co., 37,862 (La.App.
MacHelle D. Hardison v. Buffet Pizza Co., LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
Adonis Raphael v. Geraldine Elizabeth Rapheal La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
3 Cir. 12/11/96), (); Doe v. Roman Catholic Church, 94-1476 (La.App.
Raphael v. Raphael 929 So. 2d 825 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
3 Cir. 12/11/96) , (); Doe v. Roman Catholic Church, 94-1476 (La.App.