Ames v. Ohle
This text of 227 So. 3d 260 (Ames v. Ohle) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH CIRCUIT, PARISH OF ORLEANS
would grant and assigns reasons:
hi disagree with the majority’s denial of this writ. Plaintiff filed suit against defendant bank and others, alleging fraud and civil conspiracy. Defendant bank then filed a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs allegations and defendant bank’s defenses reveal numerous ambiguities creating [261]*261questions of material fact relative to defendant Ohle’s employment with the bank. In ruling on defendant bank’s motion for summary judgment relative to plaintiffs claims of fraud and civil conspiracy, the trial court weighed evidence and made credibility determinations which are not allowed when considering a motion for summary judgment. Weighing evidence and making credibility determinations are to be addressed at a trial on the merits, not at the summary judgment stage of the proceedings. For these reasons, I would grant the writ, reverse the trial court’s grant of defendant bank’s motion for summary judgment, and remand for further proceedings.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
227 So. 3d 260, 2017 WL 4324935, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ames-v-ohle-la-2017.