Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Hardy v. Bowie, 744 So. 2d 606.

293 citing documents.

Covington v. Howard 146 So. 3d 933 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
art. 966(C)(2); Hardy v. Bowie, 98-2821 (La.9/8/99), ; Foley v. Sportran, supra.
Davis v. U-Haul Co. of Louisiana 142 So. 3d 120 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Id.; Babin v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc., 00-0078 (La.6/30/00), -41 ; Hardy v. Bowie, 98-2821 (La.9/8/99), .
Michelle Dore Reinke v. Dr. Stanley Kordisch La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
Willie Clark, Et Ux. v. Jennings Police Department La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
9/8/99), (quoting Hayes v. Autin, 96-287, p. 7 (La.
Reinke v. Kordisch 134 So. 3d 176 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
“[T]he failure of the non-moving party to produce evidence of a material factual dispute mandates the granting of the motion.” Hutchinson v. Knights of Columbus, Council No. 5717, 03-1533, p. 6 (La.2/20/04), (citing Hardy v. Bowie, 98-2821, (La.9/8/99), ).
Brown v. City of Monroe 135 So. 3d 792 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
Hardy v. Borne, 98-2821 (La.09/08/99), .
Darnell Carter v. Steak House Steaks, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
Carter v. Steak House Steaks, Inc. 153 So. 3d 1162 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Hardy v. Bowie, 98-2821 (La.9/8/99), .
Janie Lejeune v. Louisiana Medical Mutual Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
Mayra Artigue v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
9/8/99), the Louisiana Supreme Court stated that “[a] fact is ‘material’ when its existence or nonexistence may be essential to plaintiff’s cause of action under the applicable theory of recovery.” Additionally, the Supreme Court stated that “[f]acts are material if they potentially insure or preclude recovery, affec
Lejeune v. Louisiana Medical Mutual Insurance Co. 153 So. 3d 1021 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
“[T]he failure of the non-moving party to produce evidence of a material factual dispute mandates the granting of the motion.” Hutchinson v. Knights of Columbus, Council No. 5717, 03-1533, p. 6 (La.2/20/04), (citing Hardy v. Bowie, 98-2821, pp. 4-5 (La.9/8/99), -10 ).
Artigue v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 154 So. 3d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
In Hardy v. Bowie, 98-2821, p. 6 (La.9/8/99), , the Louisiana Supreme Court stated that “[a] fact is ‘material’ when its existence or nonexistence may be essential to plaintiffs cause of action under the applicable theory of recovery.” Additionally, the Supreme Court stated that “[fjacts are material if they potentially insure or preclude recovery, affect a
Whitney Gary v. Jefferson Davis Council on the Aging, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
9/8/99), the Louisiana Supreme Court stated that “[a] fact is ‘material’ when its existence or nonexistence may be essential to plaintiff's cause of action under the applicable theory of recovery.” Additionally, the Supreme Court stated that “[f]acts are material if they potentially insure or preclude recovery, affec
Houston v. PNK (Bossier City), Inc. 132 So. 3d 396 La. 2014
Hardy v. Bowie, 98-2821 (La.9/8/99), .
Marti Elizabeth Simon v. Ronald Theriot, Sheriff La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
George Jagneaux v. Lafayette City-Parish Consol. govt.parks & Recreation La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
Jagneaux v. Lafayette City-Parish Consol. Gov't Parks & Recreation 128 So. 3d 681 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
“[T]he failure of the non-moving party to produce evidence of a material factual dispute mandates the granting of the motion.” Hutchinson v. Knights of Columbus, Council No. 5717, 03-1533, p. 6 (La.2/20/04), (citing Hardy v. Bowie, 98-2821, (La.9/8/99), ).
Simon v. Theriot 127 So. 3d 1057 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
Hardy v. Bowie, 99-2821 (La.9/8/99), .
Aymond v. American National Property & Casualty Co. 130 So. 3d 10 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
Hardy v. Bowie, 98-2821 (La.09/08/99), ; Duckett v. Grambling State University, 47,082 (La.App.2d Cir.04/18/12), , writ denied, 2012-1130 (La.09/14/12), .
Lenora Krielow v. R & H Supply, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
Melissa Broussard v. Retail Investors of Texas, Ltd La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
9/8/99), (quoting Hayes v. Autin, 96-287, p. 7 (La.
Helen M. Calliet-Comeaux v. Winn-Dixie Montgomery, L.L.C. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
Krielow v. R & H Supply, Inc. 123 So. 3d 1235 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
Hardy v. Bowie, 98-2821 (La.9/8/99), .
Broussard v. Retail Investors of Texas, Ltd. 123 So. 3d 912 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
This court has stated, and the supreme court agreed, “[pjrovided that sufficient time for discovery has been allowed, we will assess the proof submitted by the parties in order to weed out meritless litigation, and to secure the just, speedy, and *915 inexpensive determination of every action submitted for summary judgment.” Hardy v. Bowie, 98-2821, pp. 5-6 (La.9/8/99), (quoting Hayes v. Autin, 96-287, p. 7 (La.App.
The Estate of Willie Walters v. West Louisiana Health Services, Inc., Etc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
Estate of Walters v. West Louisiana Health Services, Inc. 157 So. 3d 632 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
“[T]he failure of the non-moving party to produce evidence of a material factual dispute mandates the granting of the motion.” Hutchinson v. Knights of Columbus, Council No. 5U7, 03-1533, p. 6 (La.2/20/04), 866 So.2d *635 228, 233 (citing Hardy v. Bowie, 98-2821, (La.9/8/99), ).
Billie Sam v. State of Louisiana, Dept. of Transportation & Development La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
Martin v. State, Department of Public Safety & Corrections, Office of State Police 109 So. 3d 442 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
In Hardy v. Bowie, 98-2821 (La.9/8/99), , the Louisiana Supreme Court provided a two-step test to determine whether the indiscretionary acts exception under this statute applies to a specific set of circumstances: A court must first consider whether the government employee had an element of choice.
Derek Page v. H. Cookie Benson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
Page v. Benson 101 So. 3d 545 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Hardy v. Bowie, 98-2821 (La.9/8/99), .
State ex rel. Plaquemines Parish School Board v. Louisiana Department of Natural Resources 99 So. 3d 1028 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
In Hardy v. Bowie, 98-2821, p. 6 (La.9/8/99), , the Louisi *1032 ana Supreme Court stated that “[a] fact is ‘material’ when its existence or nonexistence may be essential to plaintiffs cause of action under the applicable theory of recovery.” Additionally, the Supreme Court stated that “[fjacts are | (¡material if they potentially insure or preclude recovery
Superior Shipyard & Fabrication v. M & T Oceanographic Research, LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
Mason v. Garrett 96 So. 3d 650 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2012
Hardy v. Bowie, 1998-2821, p. 6 (La.09/08/1999), .
Kenneth N. Hawkins v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
Norbert Berard, Sr. v. Home State County Mutual Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
Berard v. Home State County Mutual Ins. 89 So. 3d 470 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Hardy v. Bowie, 98-2821 (La.9/8/99), .
Duckett v. Grambling State University 92 So. 3d 478 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
Hardy v. Bowie, 98-2821 (La.9/8/99), ; Smith v. Our Lady of the Lake Hospital, Inc., 93-2512 (La.7/5/94), ; Knowles, supra.
Dan S. Collins, Cpl & Associates,inc. v. Frank A. Godchaux, III, Etc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
Hardy v. Bowie, 98-2821 (La.9/8/99)
Collins v. Godchaux 86 So. 3d 831 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Hardy v. Bowie, 98-2821 (La.9/8/99), .
D'Angelo v. Guarino 88 So. 3d 683 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Hardy v. Bowie, 98-2821 (La.9/8/99), ; Hayes v. Autin, 96-287 (La.App.
Johnnie Thomas Gunter v. Jefferson Davis Parish La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
Hardy v. Bowie, 98-2821 (La.9/8/99)
Gunter v. Jefferson Davis Parish 84 So. 3d 705 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Hardy v. Bowie, 98-2821 (La.9/8/99), .
Ebarb v. Matlock 69 So. 3d 516 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
Hardy v. Bowie, 98-2821 (La.9/8/99), .
Edward D. Gutierrez v. David M. Baldridge La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
Gutierrez v. Baldridge 65 So. 3d 251 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
Hardy v. Bowie, 98-2821 (La.9/8/99), .
Johnson v. Pinnergy, Ltd. 63 So. 3d 302 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
Jones v. Estate of Santiago, 2003-1424 (La.4/14/04), ; Hardy v. Bowie, 98-2821 (La.9/8/99), .
MJH Operations, Inc. v. Manning 63 So. 3d 296 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
Hardy v. Bowie, 98-2821 (La.9/8/99), .
Brumfield v. Lind 54 So. 3d 769 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Hardy v. Bowie, 98-2821, p. 6 (La.09/08/99), .
Andrew Cox v. Extreme Real Estate, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
Cox v. Extreme Real Estate, Inc. 54 So. 3d 137 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
“Once the motion for summary judgment has been properly supported by the moving party, the failure of the non-moving party to produce evidence of a material factual dispute mandates the granting of the motion.” Cheramie Servs., Inc. v. Shell Deepwater Prod., Inc., 09-1633, pp. 9-10 (La.4/23/10), (citing Hardy v. Bowie, 98-2821 (La.9/8/99), ).