DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State ex rel. Howard v. Henderson, 266 So. 2d 430.

16 citing documents.

  • Wilhite v. Foster Wheeler Energy Corp. 517 So. 2d 1164 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
    1121 , (1972); cf. Albatross Shipping Corp. v. Stewart, 326 F.2d 208 (5th Cir.1964); see also Kay v. Carter, 243 La.
  • St. Cyr v. Catherine's Stout Shoppe 505 So. 2d 741 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
    1121 , (1972); cf. Albatross Shipping Corp. v. Stewart, 326 F.2d 208 (5th Cir.1964); see also Kay v. Carter, 243 La.
  • Hemphill v. State Farm Ins. Co. 472 So. 2d 320 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
    1121 , (1972); cf. Albatross Shipping Corp. v. Stewart, 326 F.2d 208 (5th Cir.1964); see also Kay v. Carter, 243 La.
  • Green v. DeFelice 466 So. 2d 1373 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
    1121 , (1972); cf. Albatross Shipping Corp. v. Stewart, 326 F.2d 208 (5th Cir.1964); see also Kay v. Carter, 243 La.
  • Pisarello v. Administrator's Service Corp. 464 So. 2d 917 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
    1121 , (1972); cf. Albatross Shipping Corp. v. Stewart, 326 F.2d 208 (5th Cir.1964); see also Kay v. Carter, 243 La.
  • Holmes v. St. Charles General Hosp. 465 So. 2d 117 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
    1121 , (1972); cf. Albatross Shipping Corp. v. Stewart, 326 F.2d 208 (5th Cir.1964); see also Kay v. Carter, 243 La.
  • Sosa v. Chandler Machine Co. 459 So. 2d 709 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    1121 , (1972); cf. Albatross Shipping Corp. v. Stewart, 326 F.2d 208 (5th Cir.1964); see also Kay v. Carter, 243 La.
  • Concrete Post-Tensioning v. Armco, Inc. 449 So. 2d 712 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
    1121 , (1972); cf. Albatross Shipping Corp. v. Stewart, 326 F.2d 208 (5th Cir.1964); see also Kay v. Carter, 243 La.
  • Miranda v. Cumis Insurance Society 435 So. 2d 488 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    1st Cir.1972), writ refused, cited in Chat-man, 410 So.2d at 786 , this is not sufficient to preclude summary judgment: “The mere denial of the knowledge of facts needed to countermand a motion for summary judgment does not constitute a sufficient response to such a motion, and in the absence of affidavits with specific allegations of
  • Waddell v. Bickham 431 So. 2d 59 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • Indus. Sand and Abrasives v. L. & NR Co. 427 So. 2d 1152 La. 1983
    1121 , (1972); cf. Albatross Shipping Corp. v. Stewart, 326 F.2d 208 (5th Cir. 1964); see also Kay v. Carter, 243 La.
  • Chatman v. Thor Offshore Boat Service, Inc. 410 So. 2d 784 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
    1st Cir. 1972 Writ refused , this is not sufficient to preclude summary judgment: "The mere denial of the knowledge of facts needed to countermand a motion for a summary judgment does not constitute a sufficient response to such a motion, and in the absence of affidavits with specific allegations of fact reflecting that a genuine issue exists
  • Howard v. Callahan 396 So. 2d 607 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
  • Joseph v. Doe 377 So. 2d 875 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    1121 , the Court stated that the mere claim by an opponent to a motion of summary judgment that he does not have in his *CMLVII possession facts and information necessary to counter the motion will not defeat the summary judgment motion.
  • Miller v. East Ascension Telephone Company, Inc. 331 So. 2d 182 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
  • Roach v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company 279 So. 2d 775 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973