Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

731 So. 2d 189

Aydell v. Sterns

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Decided February 26, 1999

Supreme Court of Louisiana · decided 1999-02-26

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“such a requirement [to attach or adopt by reference and incorporate supporting documentation pursuant to La. C.C.P. art. 967 with the motion for summary judgment] undermines the use of summary judgment procedures to `secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action.' La. C.C.P. art. 966 A(2).”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including 997 So. 2d 774 - Phillips v. New Hampshire Ins. Co., 977 So. 2d 880 - Samaha v. Rau

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1999-02-26

How this case has been cited

Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently May 2012

20 state decisions

170199920002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Wilbert P. AYDELL
v.
Leon STERNS, Slim Wilson, Frank Stewart, Frank Sarter, All Executive Officers, Agents, Directors, or Employees of Delta Engineers and Company; Jessie Rimer, Rex McKinley, Gerald McKinley, All Executive Officers, Agents, Directors, or Employees of C.S. Falco Inc.; Melvin Parker, Leonard Sharp, Jack Goodman, All Executive Officers, Agents, Directors, or Employees of Barnard and Burke and Company; Clemco; Pulmosan, Formerly Clementina; E.D. Bullard, Co.; and Mine Safety Appliances.

No. 98-C-3135.

¶1Supreme Court of Louisiana.

February 26, 1999.

¶2Writ granted. The Court of Appeal has erroneously held that the trial court could not rely on the evidence submitted by the defendant CIGNA in support of its motion, simply because the affidavits and deposition testimony were attached to the Memorandum in Support of the Motion and not *190 to the Motion itself. Such a requirement undermines the use of summary judgment procedures to "secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action." La.C.C.P. art. 966(A)(2). Moreover, we note that the plaintiff did not raise the issue of this alleged procedural error in its appeal to the First Circuit. Also significant is the defendant's uncontested assertion that the Motion and Memorandum in Support were filed with the trial court simultaneously, in accordance with that court's local rules. Thus, the information contained in the affidavits and deposition testimony submitted by the defendant was properly before the trial court and should have been considered by the Court of Appeal. The case is therefore remanded to the Court of Appeal for consideration of the merits of the defendant's motion for summary judgment.

¶3JOHNSON, J., would deny the writ.

¶4TRAYLOR, J., not on panel.

/731/so2d/189 · .json · Public domain