DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Sprint Communications Co., LP, 699 So. 2d 1058.

18 citing documents.

  • Rick Sutton v. Jack Adams La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2022
  • Moore v. Nguyen 244 So. 3d 605 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2017
  • First Bank & Trust v. Simmons 165 So. 3d 1025 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2015
    See State v. Sprint Commc’ns Co., L.P., 96-3094, p. 6 (La.9/9/97), (noting, albeit in the negative, the three circumstances as follows: “[i] the parties did not consent, [ii] the initial transfer was not for consolidation, and [iii] no Supreme Court rule permitted the transfers.”).
  • State v. Hanson 12 So. 3d 1007 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
    In State v. Sprint Communications Co., L.P., 96-3094 (La.9/9/97), , the Louisiana Supreme Court stated the following with respect to non-random case assignment by district court judges: [ HIJust as a litigant may not choose a courtroom or a judge, a judge may not select his caseload or his litigants.
  • Hon. Wilford D. Carter v. H. Lynn Jones, II, Clerk of Court La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
    9/9/97), in support of his argument.
  • Carter v. Jones 967 So. 2d 615 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
    art. 253.1, Judge Carter further cites State v. Sprint Communications Co., L.P., 96-3094 (La.9/9/97), , in support of his argument.
  • Celia Jane Cureton v. James Howard Cureton La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
  • Cureton v. Cureton 963 So. 2d 1039 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
    art. 253.1.” State v. Sprint Communications Company, L.P., 96-3094 (La.9/9/97), .
  • Joyner v. LIPRIE 942 So. 2d 620 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
    DISCUSSION In support of his position that Judge Jones' ruling violated the requirement of random assignment of cases, the plaintiff cites State v. Sprint Communications Company, L.P., 96-3094 (La.9/9/97), .
  • In Re Elloie 921 So. 2d 882 La. 2006
    [21] See State v. Sprint Communications Co., L.P., 96-3094 p. 5 (La.2/7/97)
  • Boh v. James Industrial Contractors 868 So. 2d 180 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
    In State v. Sprint Communications Company, L.P., 96-3094, p. 3 (La.9/9/97), , the Louisiana Supreme Court noted the impact that the transfer of cases have on random assignment of eases and specifically noted that La.
  • Oliver v. Cal Dive Intern., Inc. 844 So. 2d 942 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    State v. Sprint Communications Company, L.P., 96-3094, p. 6 (La.9/9/97), .
  • Miller v. Miller 817 So. 2d 1166 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
    Citing State v. Sprint Communications Co., 96-3094 (La.9/9/97), , and Rock v. ATPIC Trucking Co., 98-1420 (La.App.
  • Joseph v. Hospital Service District No. 2 of Parish of St. Mary 805 So. 2d 413 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    State v. Sprint Communications Company, LP., 96-3094 (La.9/9/97), ; see also Watson v. Lane Memorial Hospital, 99-0930, 99-0947 (La.5/28/99), .
  • Lane Memorial Hosp. v. Watson 734 So. 2d 28 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    State v. Sprint Communications Company, L.P., 96-3094, p. 3 (La.9/9/97); .
  • State v. Riley 731 So. 2d 409 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
  • Bourgeois v. Daigle 720 So. 2d 72 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    25B.1 and 253.2, and the Louisiana Supreme Court’s dictates in State of Louisiana v. Sprint Communications Company, L.P., 96-3094 (La.9/9/97); .
  • 730 Bienville Partners, Inc. v. Seiler 703 So. 2d 1386 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
    • LPI also cites the recent decision by the Louisiana Supreme Court in State v. Sprint Communications Co., L.P., 96-3094 (La.9/9/97), , wherein the court held that the 18th Judicial District Court’s system of transferring cases which previously had been randomly assigned to one division to another division of the same court on a non-random basis was improper and viola-tive of La.