Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 801 SO2D 648 - Colson v. Johnson

Colson v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

2001

Citation profile

2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
October 2007
most recently cited

2 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on 591 So. 2d 342 - Schroeder v. Board of Sup'rs · 455 So. 2d 1364 - Harris v. Pizza Hut of Louisiana, Inc. · Shelton v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company · 752 So. 2d 762 - Posecai v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. · Barber Bros. Contracting Co., Inc. v. DEPT. OF TRANSP. AND DEV., STATE OF LOUISIANA

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “A. (1) The plaintiff or defendant in the principal or any incidental action, with or without supporting affidavits, may move for a summary judgment in his favor for all or part of the relief for which he has prayed. The plaintiff's motion may be made at any time after the answer has been filed. The defendant's motion may be made at any time. (2) The summary judgment procedure is designed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action, except those disallowed by Article 969. The procedure is favored and shall be construed to accomplish these ends. .... C. (1) After adequate discovery or after a case is set for trial, a motion which shows that there is no genuine issue as to material fact and that the mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law shall be granted. (2) The burden of proof remains with the movant. However, if the movant will not bear the burden of proof at trial on the matter that is before the court on the motion for summary judgment, the movant's burden on the motion does not require him to negate all essential elements of the adverse party's claim, action, or defense, but rather to point out to the court that there is an absence of factual support for one or more elements essential to the adverse party's claim, action, or defense. Thereafter, if the adverse party fails to produce factual support sufficient to establish that he will be able to satisfy his evidentiary burden of proof at trial, there is no genuine issue of material f”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “The burden of showing that there are no genuine issues of material fact is borne by the mover. La.Code Civ.P. art. 966(C)(2). To satisfy this burden, the mover must present supportive evidence that the motion should be granted. Once the mover establishes a prima facie showing, the burden of production shifts to the nonmoving party to present evidence of the existence of issues of material fact which preclude summary judgment. An adverse party may not rest on the pleadings but must set forth, by affidavit or otherwise, specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. La.Code Civ.P. art. 967.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “An appellate court reviews summary judgments de novo, applying the same criteria as the district court in determining whether summary judgment is appropriate.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.