Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Dietz v. Superior Oil Co., 129 So. 3d 836.

17 citing documents.

Castex Development, LLC v. Anadarko Petroleum Corporation La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2023
Castex Development, LLC v. Anadarko Petroleum Corporation La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2023
Succession of Nadine Marie Rachal . La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2022
App. 3 Cir. 12/11/13), ).
Bom Bank v. England Economic Development and Industrial District La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2021
3 Cir. 12/1/3), : “A trial court’s granting of a dilatory exception of prematurity and an exception of improper cumulation is a final judgment subject to a manifest error standard of review.
Nationstar Mortgage, LLC v. Richard D. Schales A/K/A Richard Dewy Schales La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
Nationstar Mortg., LLC v. Schales 261 So. 3d 912 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
Kevin Barber v. Derick Jefferson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
3 Cir. 12/11/13), La.Code Civ.P.
Barber v. Jefferson 221 So. 3d 264 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
3 Cir. 12/11/13) , , La.Code Civ.P.
Timothy Bernard, Sr. v. Lafayette City Police Department La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
Edwin K. Hunter, Apc v. Thomas Glynn Blazier La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
3 Cir. 12/11/13), -40, addressed this issue, stating: A trial court’s decision to deny a motion for new trial is an interlocutory judgment subject to appeal for abuse of discretion only upon a showing of irreparable harm.
Simone B. Guillory v. Samuel S. Broussard, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
3 Cir. 12/11/13), -40, that: A trial court‟s decision to deny a motion for new trial is an interlocutory judgment subject to appeal for abuse of discretion only upon a showing of irreparable harm.
Demetrious R. Frazier v. Luke A. Difulco, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
3 Cir. 12/11/13), -40, and in doing so, stated the following: A trial court’s decision to deny a motion for new trial is an interlocutory judgment subject to appeal for abuse of discretion only upon a showing of irreparable harm.
Steve H. Crooks, Et Ux. v. Louisiana Pacific Corp. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
3 Cir. 12/11/13), and held that “while the leases may still be in effect, these claims are not premature because there is no language in the mineral or civil codes to suggest these claims for damages only arise upon lease termination.” As indicated by LPMO, both Marin and Dietz dealt with claims against a mineral lesse
Crooks v. Louisiana Pacific Corp. 155 So. 3d 686 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
3 Cir.12/11/13), , and held that “while the leases may still be in effect, these claims are not premature because there is no language in the mineral or civil codes to suggest these claims for damages only arise upon lease termination.” As indicated by LPMO, both Marin and Dietz dealt with claims against a mineral lessee as oppos
Mark McDonnell and Marie McDonnell v. Architectural Solutions, LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
McDonnell v. Architectural Solutions, LLC 150 So. 3d 572 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Alonzo v. Cain 154 So. 3d 551 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by