Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Price v. Martin, 79 So. 3d 960.

34 citing documents.

Paulette Stoke, Ricquel Hale, Rodney Thomas, Joinell Stokes, Angellica Bozant, Alvin Jones and Carol Jones v. the City … La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2025
12/6/11), instructed: To the extent that [general rule] language in McCastle, .
Michael Miazza, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State … La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2024
Joseph Robert, Gloria Decuir-Robert, Albert Bierria, Gwendolyn Bierria v. State of Louisiana, Through the Governor, the Division of … La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2023
Ashley Pratt, Individually and on behalf of all others similarity situated v. University of Louisiana at Lafayette, The … La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2022
Michael Brantley, Jr. Versus City of Gretna & Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc. La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2022
12/6/11), Ford v. Murphy Oil U.S.A., Inc., 96-2913, 96-2917, 96-2929 (La.
South Ryan Holdings, LLC v. Wendy Aguillard, as Calcasieu La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2021
Price v. Roy O. Martin, 11-853 (La.12/6/11), (quoting Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, [564 U.S. 338], 131 S.Ct.
Roderick Sanders on behalf of Himself and A Class Of Similarly Situated Louisiana Residents v. City of Winnfield La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2021
Joseph Allen, Steven Ayres, Ashley Hurlburt, Rory Kevin Gates, James Howard, Demarcus Morrow, Rodney Waller, Keith Arcement, Frederick … La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2021
Roger Reeves, Susan Fullerton, Henry Gregory, Rodney Broadway, Anita Darbonne and Ray Powell v. Explo Systems, Inc. and … La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2020
Anderson v. City of New Orleans 248 So. 3d 428 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
George Raymond Williams, M.D., Orthopaedic Surgery, a Professional Medical, LLC v. Bestcomp, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
Williams v. Bestcomp, Inc. 237 So. 3d 80 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
Harvey v. Bd. of Comm'rs for the Orleans Levee Dist. 236 So. 3d 763 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2017
12/6/11), , 966-67, citing McCastle v. Rollins Environmental Services of Louisiana, Inc. , , 618 (La.
Bagot v. James Holdings, LLC 235 So. 3d 1330 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
Lillie v. Stanford Trust Co. 235 So. 3d 1139 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
Fontcuberta v. Cleco Corp. 222 So. 3d 235 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
12/6/11), (citation omitted).
Albe v. City of New Orleans 174 So. 3d 212 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2015
As the Court stated in Price v. Martin, 11-853, p. 10 (La.12/6/11), , 969: The commonality prerequisite requires a party seeking class certification to show that “[t]here are questions of law or fact common to the class.” La.
Cheryl Hill v. Sheriff Sid Hebert La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
12/6/11), -967 (footnotes omitted).
Hill v. Hebert 169 So. 3d 731 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
Price v. Martin, 11-853 pp. 6-8 (La.12/6/11), -967 (footnotes omitted).
Claborne v. Housing Authority of New Orleans 165 So. 3d 268 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
Price v. Martin, 2011-853, p. 7 (La.12/6/11), .
Gloria Vallare v. Ville Platte Medical Center La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
12/6/11), (quoting Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, ___ U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct.
Vallare v. Ville Platte Medical Center, LLC 151 So. 3d 984 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
In Price v. Martin, 11-853, p. 21 (La.12/6/11), (quoting Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct.
Doe v. University Healthcare Systems, L.L.C. 145 So. 3d 557 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
| ^STANDARD OF REVIEW In Price v. Martin, 11-0853, pp. 7-8 (La.12/6/11), , the Louisiana Supreme Court explained the standard of review to be applied by the appellate court when reviewing a trial court’s determination of whether to certify a class: In reviewing a judgment on class certification, the district court’s factual findings are subject to the manifest error standard, which th
Smith v. City of New Orleans 131 So. 3d 511 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
It argues that the Appellants seek damages from ACS alleging that it improperly converted their funds, but ACS maintains that the Court must conduct a rigorous analysis of whether the putative class-member claims are susceptible of class-wide proof under Price v. Martin, 11-0853 (La.12/6/11), and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, _ U.S. _, 131 S.Ct.
Doe v. Jo Ellen Smith Medical Foundation 115 So. 3d 655 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
STANDARD OF REVIEW The Louisiana Supreme Court in Price v. Martin, 11-0853, pp. 7-8 (La.12/6/11), , 967 explained: In reviewing a judgment on class certification, the district court’s factual findings are subject to the manifest error standard, while the court’s ultimate decision regarding whether to certify the class is reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard.
Doe v. Southern Gyms, LLC 112 So. 3d 822 La. 2013
Price v. Martin, 2011-0853, p. 6 (La.12/6/11); ; Dupree , 2009-2602, p. 5; 51 So.3d at 679 .
Walker v. AMID/Metro Partnership, LLC 109 So. 3d 35 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
The City and private defendants argue that plaintiffs are not entitled to class certification because their claims do not meet the requirements for class certification as recently clarified in Price v. Martin, 11-0853 (La.12/6/11), .
Guidry v. Dow Chemical Co. 105 So. 3d 900 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Price v. Martin, 2011-0853 (La.12/6/11), .
Lloyd Dwayne Reeves v. Environmental Response Services, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
Reeves v. Environmental Response Services, Inc. 104 So. 3d 561 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Price v. Martin, 11-853 (La.12/6/11), .
Hebert v. Ochsner Fertility Clinic 102 So. 3d 913 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
See Price v. Martin, 11-0853 (La.12/6/11), ; Dupree v. Lafayette Insurance Co., 09-2602 (La.11/30/10), ; and Brooks v. Union Pacific R. Co., 08-2035 (La.5/22/09), .
Jones v. Capitol Enterprises, Inc. 89 So. 3d 474 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
In support of its position, FFIC cites the Louisiana Supreme Court’s recent decision Price v. Martin, 11-0853, p. 6 (La.12/6/11), , for the proposition that a “rigorous analysis” is required of the factors for determining whether a class action meets the requirements imposed by law.
Alexander v. Norfolk Southern Corp. 82 So. 3d 1234 La. 2012
Recently, in Price v. Martin, 11-0853, p. 10 (La.12/6/11), , we held that in order for a case to proceed as a class action, “there must be ‘significant proof,’ subject to ‘rigorous analysis,’ of a common question — one where the ‘determination of its truth or falsity will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each one of the claims in one stroke.’ “ (quoting Wal
Desselle v. Acadian Ambulance Service, Inc. 83 So. 3d 1243 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Price v. Roy O. Mar tin, 11-853 (La.12/6/11), (quoting Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, — U.S.-, 181 S.Ct.