DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Hill v. Green, 275 So. 2d 407.

30 citing documents.

  • Marshall v. Air Liquide-Big Three, Inc. 107 So. 3d 13 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    This reasoning follows the Louisiana Supreme Court’s that a trial judge has discretion to refuse to allow the filing of amended pleadings that it finds are proffered for the purposes of circumventing the time limits.
  • Butler v. Hicks 794 So. 2d 805 La. 2001
  • Citgo Petroleum Corp. v. Yeargin, Inc. 678 So. 2d 936 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
  • Sharkey v. Sterling Drug, Inc. 600 So. 2d 701 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
    Scurria v. Madison Parish Police Jury, J.O., (La.App.
  • Holmes v. GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA 587 So. 2d 750 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
  • Revel v. Telecheck Louisiana 581 So. 2d 405 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
  • Scurria v. Madison Parish Police Jury 566 So. 2d 1077 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
  • Fradella v. Louisiana Materials, Inc. 502 So. 2d 1157 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
    1733 C: “The pleading demanding a trial by jury shall be filed not later than ten days after the service of the last pleading directed to any issue triable by a jury....” holds that an answer to an amending petition demanding greater damages is itself a pleading directed to an issue triable by jury within C.C.P.
  • Sanders v. Old Quarter Tours, Inc. 499 So. 2d 1346 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
  • Paul v. Murray 488 So. 2d 768 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    cited by plaintiff in support of his position that the trial judge erred in not ordering a jury trial, is inappo-site since in that case the motion for a jury trial was filed within ten days of an answer filed in response to an amended petition.
  • Pawlak v. Brown 430 So. 2d 1346 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
  • Godwin v. Denby 401 So. 2d 1197 La. 1981
  • Breaux v. Roy Young, Inc. 397 So. 2d 1384 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
    The court, stated, at page 410, that: "There is within the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure the necessary safeguard against any abuse of the provisions of Article 1732 by the filing of amending pleadings.
  • Cacioppo v. Hanover Insurance 401 So. 2d 415 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    First, Article 1732 of the Code of Civil Procedure governs the granting of a jury trial: “A party may demand a trial by jury of any issue triable of right by a jury in a pleading filed not later than ten days after the service of the last pleading directed to such issue.” Two cases interpreting this article, we find to be controlling: (La.App.
  • City Stores Co. v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. 395 So. 2d 953 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    When the last pleading, such as an amended answer, is directed to only one issue, such as quantum, the Louisiana supreme court apparently interprets that article to afford trial by jury not merely as to “such issue” but as to all issues; Barberito v. Green, La.1973, .
  • Trichel v. Caire 395 So. 2d 952 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    is dispositive of the primary question raised here.
  • Bernard v. Allstate Ins. Co. 396 So. 2d 548 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
    However, the Supreme Court, stated, on page 410, that: "There is within the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure the necessary safeguard against any abuse of the provisions of Article 1732 by the filing of amending pleadings.
  • State v. Spell 388 So. 2d 754 La. 1980
  • Chen v. Hospital Affiliates of Baton Rouge, Inc. 367 So. 2d 1197 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
    Under the holding of our Supreme Court in Barberito *1198 v. Green, once an amendment to the pleadings of a party is granted, the trial judge has no discretion to refuse a trial by jury.
  • State v. Shannon 360 So. 2d 193 La. 1978
  • Sonnier v. Gray Tool Co. 359 So. 2d 1111 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1978
  • State v. Perry 351 So. 2d 1201 La. 1977
  • Distinguished Arbmahla High Corp. v. North American Co. 345 So. 2d 1291 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    cited by the relator, there the trial court had permitted the plaintiff to file an amended petition, and the plaintiffs motion for a trial by jury was field within 10 days of the last pleading directed to a triable issue, which was the defendant’s amended answer.
  • Case v. Arrow Trucking Co. 345 So. 2d 1250 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    We appreciate respondents’ argument that the administratrix was already a defendant by the third party demand and that the negligence of the deceased was already an issue, : “We find there is no requirement in Article 1732 that the motion for a jury trial must be filed not later than ten days after the service of the last pleading raising a new issue, (emphasis by this Court) “While our holding herein is contrary to the Federal courts’ interpretation of Rule 38(B), the counterp
  • Windham v. Security Ins. Co. of Hartford 337 So. 2d 577 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1976
    735 , ; Barberito v. Green, La.App., , reversed on other grounds, Scott v. Hardware Mutual Insurance, La.App., ; Hicks v. Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State U., La.App., .
  • O'NEAL v. Cascio 324 So. 2d 539 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1975
    Although not directly in point
  • Terry v. Fernandez 323 So. 2d 143 La. 1975
    See Hill (Barberito) v. Green, La., .
  • Phillips v. Schmidt 311 So. 2d 471 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1975
    We are referred to the case of Latino v. Rush, supra, reaching one result, and Jenkins v. Prager, Inc., reaching the other.
  • Hernandez v. Sartain 297 So. 2d 740 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
    Appellant's reliance upon Barberito v. Green, La., , is ill-founded.
  • Jenkins v. Prager, Inc. 299 So. 2d 561 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
    Barberito v. Green, La., ; Breaux v. Laird, footnote 3; Stewart v. Maloney Trucking & Storage, Inc., La.App., ; Brocato v. T.S.C.