Aydell v. Sterns

731 So. 2d 189, 1999 WL 135086
CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana
DecidedFebruary 26, 1999
Docket98-C-3135
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 731 So. 2d 189 (Aydell v. Sterns) 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.

Bluebook
Aydell v. Sterns, 731 So. 2d 189, 1999 WL 135086 (La. 1999).

Opinion

731 So.2d 189 (1999)

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.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

February 26, 1999.

Writ 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.

JOHNSON, J., would deny the writ.

TRAYLOR, J., not on panel.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Sheffie v. Wal-Mart Louisiana, LLC
92 So. 3d 625 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2012)
Arregui v. Risk Management Services, LLC
62 So. 3d 136 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2011)
Gatlin v. KLEINHEITZ
34 So. 3d 872 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2009)
Lewis v. Jabbar
5 So. 3d 250 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2009)
Monterrey Center, LLC v. Ed.ucation Partners, Inc.
5 So. 3d 225 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2008)
Phillips v. New Hampshire Ins. Co.
997 So. 2d 774 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2008)
Samaha v. Rau
977 So. 2d 880 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 2008)
Satterthwaite v. Byais
943 So. 2d 390 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2006)
Boland v. West Feliciana Parish Police Jury
878 So. 2d 808 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2004)
Hebert v. Bill-Wood Ltd. Liability Co.
862 So. 2d 1227 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2003)
O'NEAL v. Blackwell
818 So. 2d 118 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2001)
Frisard v. Autin
747 So. 2d 813 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1999)
Melton v. Miley
754 So. 2d 1088 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1999)
Scott v. American Tobacco Co.
731 So. 2d 189 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
731 So. 2d 189, 1999 WL 135086, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aydell-v-sterns-la-1999.