Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Horton v. McCary, 635 So. 2d 199.

113 citing documents.

In re Medical Review Panel Smith 23 So. 3d 1018 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
[[Image here]] In Horton v. McCary, 93-2315 (La.4/11/94), , the supreme court addressed the propriety of the dismissal of a plaintiffs claims for failure to comply with discovery, observing that “[tjhere is a distinction between the sanctions available for failure to comply with discovery and the sanctions avail *1021 able for disobedience of court ordered discovery” and tha
Office Furniture Outlet, Inc. v. Grau 12 So. 3d 1065 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
Horton v. McCary, 1993-2315 (La.04/11/94), .
Johnson v. Gonzales 5 So. 3d 1062 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
At Your Service Enterprises, Inc. v. Swope 4 So. 3d 138 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
(citing Horton v. McCary, 93-2315 (La.4/11/94), ).
Black v. Comfort 996 So. 2d 1187 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
In Horton v. McCary, 93-2315, pp. 10-11 (La.4/11/94), , the Louisiana Supreme Court adopted from the federal courts the following four factors to consider before taking the drastic action of dismissal: 1) whether the violation was willful or resulted from an inability to comply; 2) whether less drastic sanctions would be effective; 3) whether the violations prejudic
Schmolke v. Schmolke 986 So. 2d 257 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
Richardson v. Amos 978 So. 2d 1184 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
Horton v. McCary, 93-2315 (La.4/11/94), ; Varnell, supra .
Bravo v. Borden 975 So. 2d 36 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2007
(citing Horton v. McCary, 93-2315, p. 10 (La.4/11/94), ).
Wilson v. BROWN BROTHER 973 So. 2d 132 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
art. 1471(3); Horton v. McCary, 93-2315 (La.4/11/94), .
Raspanti v. Litchfield 946 So. 2d 234 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
Horton v. McCary, 93-2315 (La.4/11/94), .
Thomas v. AP Green Industries, Inc. 933 So. 2d 843 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
See Horton v. McCary, 93-2315 (La.4/1/94), (noting that among the factors to be considered in imposing sanctions is the prejudice to the other party).
Nicholas Rozas v. Keith Montero La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
In the recent case of Trahan, 886 So.2d at 1249-50 (alteration in original), this court observed: In Horton v. McCary, 93-2315 (La.4/11/94), the supreme court addressed the propriety of the dismissal of a plaintiff’s claims for failure to comply with discovery, observing that “[t]here is a distinction between the sanctions available for failure to comply with discovery and the sanctions available for disobedience of court ordered
Rozas v. Montero 916 So. 2d 444 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
In the recent case of Trahan, 886 So.2d at 1249-50 (alteration in original), this court observed: In Horton v. McCary, 93-2315 (La.4/11/94), , the supreme court addressed the propriety of the dismissal of a plaintiff's claims for failure to comply with discovery, observing that "[t]here is a distinction between the sanctions available for failure to comply with discovery and the sanctions available for disobedience of court ordered discovery" and that "[t]
MEDICAL REV. PANEL PROC. v. Touro Infirmary 913 So. 2d 131 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
Horton v. McCary, 93-2315 (La.4/11/94), .
Lane v. Kennan 901 So. 2d 630 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
In Horton v. McCary, 93-2315 (La.4/11/94), , the Louisiana Supreme Court adopted the federal courts four-factor test to consider before taking the drastic action of dismissal.
Lang v. Asten, Inc. 900 So. 2d 1031 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
Horton v. McCary, 93-2315 (La.4/11/94), (J. Kimball dissents, ).
Carliss Wayne Gordon, Sr. v. Sonic of Jennings, La La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
Horton v. McCary, 93-2315, p. 10 (La.4/11/94)
Gordon v. Sonic of Jennings 893 So. 2d 158 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
Horton v. McCary, 93-2315, p. 10 (La.4/11/94), .
Smith v. 4938 Prytania, Inc. 895 So. 2d 65 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
In Horton v. McCary, 93-2315 (La.4/11/94), , another Supreme Court case, the defendants failed to answer interrogatories and respond to a request for production of documents.
House of Blues New Orleans Restaurant Corp. v. Barbecue of New Orleans, Inc. 894 So. 2d 432 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
Explained In Re: Cynthia Wiley, Indiv. and on Behalf of Lillie M. Wiley La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
Kenneth Trahan and Lisa A. Trahan v. State of La., Department of Health & Hospitals La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
4/11/94), the supreme court addressed the propriety of the dismissal of a plaintiff’s claims for failure to comply with discovery, observing that “[t]here is a distinction between the sanctions available for failure to comply with discovery and the sanctions available for disobedience of court ordered discovery” and that “
Trahan v. State ex rel. Department of Health & Hospitals 886 So. 2d 1245 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
In Horton v. McCary, 93-2315 (La.4/11/94), , the supreme court addressed the propriety of the dismissal of a plaintiffs claims for failure to comply with discovery, observing that “[tjhere is a distinction between the sanctions available for failure to comply with discovery and the sanctions available for disobedience of court ordered discovery” and that “[t]r
Explained In re Wiley 886 So. 2d 1275 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
3 Cir. 12/23/03) , , 1 reversed the dismissal and the matter was remanded to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the dismissal was an abuse of discretion as explained in Horton v. McCary, 93-2315 (La.4/11/94), .
Trahan v. STATE EX REL. DHH 886 So. 2d 1245 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
In Horton v. McCary, 93-2315 (La.4/11/94), , the supreme court addressed the propriety of the dismissal of a plaintiff's claims for failure to comply with discovery, observing that "[t]here is a distinction between the sanctions available for failure to comply with discovery and the sanctions available for disobedience of court ordered discovery" and that "[t]
Hutchinson v. Westport Ins. Corp. 886 So. 2d 438 La. 2004
Horton v. McCary, 93-2315, p. 10 (La.4/11/94), .
Simms v. Progressive Ins. Co. 883 So. 2d 473 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
3d Cir.1993), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, the plaintiff was awarded $50,000 for loss of enjoyment of life due to a left femur fracture which caused him to lose a potential professional baseball career.
Hutchinson v. Westport Insurance Corp. 875 So. 2d 891 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
In Horton v. McCary, 93-2315 (La.4/11/94), , the Supreme Court enunciated four factors to consider before taking the drastic measure of dismissal.
In Re: Cynthia Wiley, Individually and on Behalf of Lillie M. Wiley La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
In Re Wiley 862 So. 2d 1243 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
[6] Horton v. McCary, 93-2315 (La.4/11/94), .
Jackson v. Buttattia 855 So. 2d 902 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
Horton v. McCary, 93-2315 (La.04/11/94), .
Watters v. Department of Social Services 849 So. 2d 734 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
Horton v. McCary, 93-2315 (La.4/11/94), (J. Kimball dissents, ).
Brooks v. SEWERAGE AND WATER BD. 847 So. 2d 639 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
Benware v. Means, 99-1410 (La.1/19/02), ; Horton v. McCary, 93-2315 (La.4/11/94), .
Lirette v. Babin Farm, Inc. 843 So. 2d 1141 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Horton v. McCary, 93-2315, p. 10 (La.4/11/94), .
Day v. Ouachita Parish School Bd. 823 So. 2d 1039 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
3rd Cir.1993), aff'd in part and rev'd on other grounds, 93-2315 (La.4/11/94), .
In re Forgione 821 So. 2d 673 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
Referring to the express statutory 17remedies available to a trial court for a disobedient party in discovery disputes, our Supreme Court has stated that “[b]oth dismissal and default are draconian penalties which should be applied only in extreme circumstances.” Horton v. McCary, 93-2315 (La.4/11/94), (addressing La.
Squibb v. Century Group, Inc. 824 So. 2d 361 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
3 Cir.1993), rev'd on other grounds, 93-2315 (La.4/11/94); , we found no error with the following instruction on loss of enjoyment of life: "the plaintiff[][is] entitled to recover general damages `if he proves that his lifestyle was detrimentally altered or if he was forced to give up activities because of his injury.
Coleman v. Asplundh Tree Expert Co. 815 So. 2d 268 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
In Horton v. McCary, 93-2315 (La.4/11/94), , the Supreme Court stated as follows: There is a distinction between the sanctions available for failure to comply with discovery and the sanctions available for disobedience of court-ordered discovery.
Barber v. Ichaso 811 So. 2d 1128 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
In Horton v. McCrary, 93-C-2315 (La.4/11/94), , the Louisiana supreme court discussed the sanctions permitted by La.Code Civ.
Roccaforte v. Nintendo of America, Inc. 802 So. 2d 764 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
In Horton v. McCary, 93-2315 (La.4/11/94), , our Supreme Court discussed these articles: There is a distinction between the sanctions available for failure to comply with discovery and the sanctions available for disobedience of court ordered discovery....
Reeder v. New York Life Ins. Co. 790 So. 2d 712 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
[4] Horton v. McCary, 93-2315, , (La.4/11/94).
Hamblen v. Hospital Service District No. 1 775 So. 2d 1214 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
In Horton v. McCary, 93-2315, p. 10 (La.4/11/94), , our supreme court stated the penalties of dismissal and default provided by Article 1471 are “draconian penalties which should be applied only in extreme circumstances.” One of the four factors to consider before taking such a drastic measure is “whether the client participated in the violation or simply misund
Payne v. Green 769 So. 2d 650 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
They contend that such sanctions are excessive and punitive
Kose v. Cablevision of Shreveport 755 So. 2d 1039 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
3d Cir. 1993), affirmed in part and reversed in part on other grounds, 93-2315 (La.4/11/94), .
Benware v. Means 752 So. 2d 841 La. 2000
Peterson v. Gibraltar Sav. and Loan 733 So. 2d 1198 La. 1999
4/11/94), ; reh'ing denied.
Edwards v. Daugherty 729 So. 2d 1112 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
3 Cir.1993), reversed in part on other grounds, 93-2315 (La.4/11/94), .
Robertson v. Northshore Regional Medical Center 723 So. 2d 460 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
See Horton v. McCary, 93-2315 (La.4/11/94), , and cases cited therein.
McDonnell v. Nestle Beverage Co. 714 So. 2d 757 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
1993), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 93-2315 (La.4/11/94), , reh'g denied.
McMahon v. Regional Transit Authority 704 So. 2d 392 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
in part, on other grounds 93-2315 (La.4/11/94), ; Hood v. State Through Dept. of Transp.