DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Edwards v. Daugherty, 729 So. 2d 1112.

31 citing documents.

  • Nancy Anderson; Joy Manguno; Jayme Songy, as Curator for Malvina Songy; And Janice Verdin, as Responsible Party of … La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2022
    App. 3 Cir. 3/10/99), Guidry v. First Nat.
  • Mona Leblanc v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
    3 Cir. 3/10/99); writs denied, 99-1393 and 99- 1434 (La.9/17/99); ).
  • LeBlanc v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 177 So. 3d 1125 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    App. 3 Cir. 3/10/99); , writs denied, 99-1393 and 99-1434 (La.9/17/99); ).
  • Terry J. Trahan, Jr. v. Robert M. Buatt La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    3 Cir. 3/10/99), writs denied, 99-1393, 99-1434 (La.
  • Covington v. McNEESE STATE UNIVERSITY 32 So. 3d 223 La. 2010
    3 Cir. 3/10/99) ; , a case which also involved Judge Carter.
  • Mel McDaniel v. Carencro Lions Club La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    3 Cir. 3/10/99), quoting Ourso v. Grimm, 92-1274 (La.App.
  • McDaniel v. Carencro Lions Club 934 So. 2d 945 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    3 Cir. 3/10/99) , , quoting Ourso v. Grimm, 92-1274 (La.App.
  • Edwards v. Daugherty 883 So. 2d 932 La. 2004
    3 Cir. 3/10/99) , , writs denied, 99-1393, 99-1434 (La.9/17/99), .
  • Soileau v. Soileau 870 So. 2d 584 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
    3 Cir. 3/10/99), ,) writs denied, 99-1393, , 99-1434 (La.9/17/99), .
  • Steven B. Soileau v. Cynthia Bailey Soileau La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    3 Cir. 3/10/99), writs denied, 99-1393, 99-1434 (La.
  • Oubre v. Eslaih 869 So. 2d 71 La. 2004
    3 Cir. 3/10/99) , , writ denied, 99-1393, 99-1434 (La.9/7/99), .
  • Davis v. Witt 851 So. 2d 1119 La. 2003
  • Oubre v. Eslaih 840 So. 2d 54 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
  • Ryder v. Rowan Companies 845 So. 2d 540 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    3 Cir. 3/10/99) , , writs denied, 99-1393 & 99-1434 (La.9/17/99), , wherein the Court explained the law applicable to the interpretation of statutes: In interpreting a statute, we must “consider all parts together, giving effect to all parts, if possible, and not construing as surplusage any sentence, clause or word
  • Madison v. ERNEST N. MORIAL CONVENT. CENTER 834 So. 2d 578 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
    3 Cir. 3/10/99) , ; Griffin v. International Ins.
  • Davis v. Witt 831 So. 2d 1075 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
    3 Cir. 3/10/99); , writs denied, 99-2034, 99-1393, 99-1484 (La.9/17/99); , 1105 that where there are inconsistent verdicts involving political subdivisions, there is no conflict between the jury and the trial judge verdicts.
  • Green v. L & F Constr., Inc. 829 So. 2d 1206 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    App. 3 Cir. 3/10/99); , writs denied, 99-1393 and 99-1434 (La.9/17/99); .
  • Bergeron v. STATE BOXING 829 So. 2d 620 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
    3 Cir. 3/10/99) , , writ denied, 99-1393, 99-1394 (La.9/17/99), ; Bergeron v. Blake Drilling & Worker Co., (La.App.
  • Molina v. City of New Orleans 830 So. 2d 994 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
  • Riley v. Maison Orleans II, Inc. 829 So. 2d 479 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
    3 Cir. 3/10/99) , -1132 ; Hooker v. Super Products Corp., 98-1107 (La.App.
  • Baullion v. Old American Pottery Co. 801 So. 2d 567 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    3 Cir. 3/10/99); , writs denied, 99-1393 and 99-1434 (La.9/17/99); .
  • SOUTHERN CASING OF LA., INC. v. Houma Avionics, Inc. 809 So. 2d 1040 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    App. 3d Cir.3/10/99), , writs denied, 99-1393, 99-1434 (La.9/17/99), .
  • Edwards v. Daugherty 776 So. 2d 557 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
    3 Cir. 3/10/99) ; , writs denied, 99-1393, 99-1434 (La.9/17/99); .
  • Alexander v. Austin 771 So. 2d 719 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    3 Cir. 3/10/99) , ; writs denied, 99-1434 (La.9/17/99); ; (La.App.
  • Explained Pettifield v. Venture, Inc. 770 So. 2d 811 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    3 Cir.); , writ denied, 99-1393, 99-1434 (La.9/17/99); , we explained: The failure of a litigant to produce evidence within his reach raises the presumption that the evidence would have been detrimental to his case.
  • Edwards v. Daugherty 769 So. 2d 611 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    3 Cir. 3/10/99) ; , writs denied, 99-1393 and 99-1434 (La.9/17/99); .
  • Voitier v. Church Point Wholesale Bev. Co., Inc. 760 So. 2d 451 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
    3 Cir. 3/10/99) ; , writs denied, 99-1393 and 99-1431 (La.9/17/99); .
  • Guidry v. First Nat. Bank of Commerce 755 So. 2d 1033 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
    3d Cir.3/10/99), , writs denied, 99-1393, 99-1434 (La.9/17/99), , "the statutory grounds for recusal in civil cases have not been amended by the Legislature" to either include `appearance of impropriety' as a grounds for recusal or to require recusal under subsection B of Article 151.
  • Mendoza v. Mashburn 747 So. 2d 1159 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
  • Western Southern v. Lafleur 746 So. 2d 254 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    3 Cir. 3/10/99) ; , a panel of this court, addressing the law applicable to the interpretation of statutes stated: In interpreting a statute, we must “consider all parts together, giving effect to all parts, if possible, and not construing as surplusage any sentence, clause or word, if a construction can be legitimately found which wil
  • Edwards v. Daugherty 736 So. 2d 345 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999