Cited by

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

113 citing documents.

L & M Products, Inc. v. State, Dept. of Transp. and Dev. 704 So. 2d 415 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
Garza v. International Maintenance Corp. 702 So. 2d 1021 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
Horton v. McCary, 93-2315, p. 9 (La.4/11/94); .
Helm v. Mervyn's Dept. Store 699 So. 2d 129 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
Horton v. McCary, 93-2315 (La.4/11/94), , 203 citing MTU of North America, Inc. v. Raven Marine, Inc., (La.
George v. Pigno 696 So. 2d 186 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
3 Cir. 7/30/93) ; ; reversed in part on other grounds 93-2315 (La.5/12/94); .
LeBlanc v. GMAC Financial Services 695 So. 2d 1106 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
Cross v. Cutter Biological, Div. of Miles Inc. 676 So. 2d 131 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
4/11/94), , which states, "Criteria to be considered in imposing any sanctions [for failure to comply with a discovery order] are the prejudice to plaintiffs and the willfulness of defendants."
Varnell v. Louisiana Tech University 671 So. 2d 1238 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
Bernard v. Lott 666 So. 2d 702 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
4/11/94), ; Hood v. State Through Dept. of Transp.
Rice v. Sagrera 657 So. 2d 419 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
4/11/94); , 203: There is a distinction between the sanctions available for failure to comply with discovery and the sanctions available for disobedience of court ordered discovery.
Hurtle v. STATE FARM MUT. AUTO INS. 651 So. 2d 418 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
Archer v. Tudor Const. Co. 649 So. 2d 1251 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
Sebastien v. McKay 649 So. 2d 711 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
3d Cir.1993), reversed in part on other grounds, (La.
Creppel v. Tidewater Marine Service, Inc. 644 So. 2d 1071 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
the Louisiana Supreme Court recently set forth the following standards for determining when dismissal or default is appropriate under La.C.Civ.P.