Tucker v. Northeast Tree Ser.

9 Citing cases

  1. Pride Centric Res. v. LaPorte, A Prof'l Accounting Corp.

    Civil Action 19-10163 (E.D. La. Sep. 17, 2021)

    Id.; Boudreaux v. Swift Transp. Co., 402 F.3d 536, 540 (5th Cir. 2005); see Harrison v. Parker, 31, 844 (La.App. 2d Cir.5/5/99), 737 So.2d 160.Tucker v. Northeast Louisiana Tree Service, 27, 768 (La.App. 2d Cir.12/6/95), 665 So.2d 672; Schroeder v. Bd. of Supervisors of Louisiana State Univ., 591 So.2d 342 (La.1991). Here, LaPorte and Hof have provided contradictory sets of facts regarding FSW's reliance on LaPorte's 2013 and 2014 audit report, each supported by affidavits and deposition testimony. Courts must construe “all facts and inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, ” in this case Hof. Whether this evidence is enough to constitute LaPorte's negligence or to show its audit reports were a cause-in-fact of FSW losses is a disputed material fact to be resolved by the jury.

  2. Pride Centric Res. v. LaPorte

    Civil Action 19-10163 (E.D. La. Sep. 17, 2021)

    Id.; Boudreaux v. Swift Transp. Co., 402 F.3d 536, 540 (5th Cir. 2005); see Harrison v. Parker, 31, 844 (La.App. 2d Cir.5/5/99), 737 So.2d 160.Tucker v. Northeast Louisiana Tree Service, 27, 768 (La.App. 2d Cir.12/6/95), 665 So.2d 672; Schroeder v. Bd. of Supervisors of Louisiana State Univ., 591 So.2d 342 (La.1991). Louisiana courts have held that the issue of when accounting malpractice is discoverable is a question of fact.

  3. Falgout v. Higbee Lancoms, LP

    CIVIL ACTION No. 20-57 SECTION I (E.D. La. Dec. 14, 2020)

    Further, "[w]hen the employer seeks to avail itself of tort immunity under Section 1032, the employer has the burden of proving entitlement to immunity." Tucker v. Ne. Louisiana Tree Serv., 665 So. 2d 672, 677 (La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995). An injury "arises out of" employment if an employee is more likely to encounter the injury-causing risk than is a member of the general public.

  4. Thayer v. State

    653 N.W.2d 595 (Iowa 2002)   Cited 16 times
    Holding thirty-two days was a reasonable time to file the notice of appeal after service on the opposing parties

    One relevant fact to consider is whether the employer has made a "prevailing practice" of transporting employees back and forth. Tucker v. Northeast Louisiana Tree Serv., 665 So.2d 672, 678 (La.Ct.App. 1995). If such trips are made irregularly, that suggests the employer is providing the service gratuitously.

  5. Benniefiel v. Zurich Am.

    10 So. 3d 381 (La. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 8 times

    When affidavits and exhibits present a choice of reasonable inferences, such inferences must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion for summary judgment. Tucker v. Northeast Louisiana Tree Service, 27,768 (La.App. 2d Cir. 12/6/95), 665 So.2d 672; Schroeder v. Bd. of Supervisors of Louisiana State Univ., 591 So.2d 342 (La. 1991).Id.; see also Greer v. Dresser Indus., Inc., 98-129 (La.App. 3 Cir. 7/1/98), 715 So.2d 1235, writ denied, 98-2094 (La.11/6/98), 728 So.2d 867.

  6. Bell v. Gold Rush Casino

    893 So. 2d 969 (La. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 12 times

    When affidavits and exhibits present a choice of reasonable inferences, such inferences must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion for summary judgment. Tucker v. Northeast Louisiana Tree Service, 27,768 (La.App. 2d Cir.12/6/95), 665 So.2d 672; Schroeder v. Bd. of Supervisors of Louisiana State Univ., 591 So.2d 342 (La. 1991).Id.; see also Greer v. Dresser Indus., Inc., 98-129 (La.App. 3 Cir. 7/1/98), 715 So.2d 1235, writ denied, 98-2094 (La. 11/6/98), 728 So.2d 867.

  7. Hebert v. Bill-Wood Ltd.

    862 So. 2d 1227 (La. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 1 times

    When affidavits and exhibits present a choice of reasonable inferences, such inferences must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion for summary judgment. Tucker v. Northeast Louisiana Tree Service, 27,768 (La.App. 2d Cir.12/6/95), 665 So.2d 672; Schroeder v. Bd. of Supervisors of Louisiana State Univ., 591 So.2d 342 (La. 1991).See also Greer v. Dresser Indus., Inc., 98-129 (La.App. 3 Cir. 7/1/98), 715 So.2d 1235, writ denied, 98-2094 (La. 11/6/98), 728 So.2d 867.

  8. Campbell v. Hosp. Ser. Dist.

    793 So. 2d 521 (La. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 5 times

    Also, where the evidence on summary judgment presents a choice of reasonable inferences, such inferences must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment. Tucker v. Northeast Louisiana Tree Service, 27,768 (La.App. 2d Cir. 12/06/95), 665 So.2d 672, writ denied, 96-0063 (La. 03/08/96), 669 So.2d 404, writ not considered, 96-0100 (La. 03/08/96), 669 So.2d 404; Coleman v. Sheraton Pierremont, 25,452 (La.App. 2d Cir. 01/19/94), 631 So.2d 50. Here, the trial court, faced with divergent expert opinions, considered each opinion and made an improper determination that the opinions of Drs. Tepper and Barrow were more credible than that of the medical review panel, which it characterized as "bare."

  9. Webb v. SEP, Inc.

    752 So. 2d 881 (La. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 3 times
    In Webb v. SEP, Inc., 31,946 (La.App. 2nd Cir. 5/5/99), we acknowledged the statement from White that proof of the temporal element is "not an impossible burden;" however, we also observed that such proof "appears to be an onerous burden for the claimant to meet."

    Also, where affidavits and exhibits present a choice of reasonable inferences, such inferences must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment. Tucker v. Northeast Louisiana Tree Service, 27,768 (La.App. 2nd Cir. 12/6/95), 665 So.2d 672, writ denied, 96-0063 (La. 3/8/96), 669 So.2d 404; Coleman v. Sheraton Pierremont, 25,452 (La.App. 2nd Cir. 1/19/94), 631 So.2d 50. Here, it is evident that the majority weighed the evidence and determined that the fall was caused by Ms. Webb's own actions rather then by the presence of the water on the floor.