Smith v. State

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Smith v. State

267 So. 3d 68

Supreme Court of Louisiana·Decided April 8, 2019·No. No. 2019-C-0225·Published

Opinion

In this trip and fall case I would grant and docket the writ application of State of Louisiana/Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD) to examine whether the plaintiff has presented sufficient factual support to establish the existence of a genuine issue of material fact: whether DOTD "had actual or constructive knowledge of the alleged (rug) defect and failed to take corrective measures within a reasonable time". See La. C.C.P. art. 966(D). See also Fontenot v. Patterson Ins. , 2009-0669 (La. 10/20/09), 23 So.3d 259, 268.

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

In this trip and fall case I would grant and docket the writ application of State of Louisiana/Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD) to examine whether the plaintiff has presented sufficient factual support to establish the existence of a genuine issue of material fact: whether DOTD "had actual or constructive knowledge of the alleged (rug) defect and failed to take corrective measures within a reasonable time". See La. C.C.P. art. 966(D). See also Fontenot v. Patterson Ins. , 2009-0669 (La. 10/20/09), 23 So.3d 259, 268.

Smith v. State, 267 So. 3d 68 (La. 2019).

Pincite

267 So. 3d 68 (Smith v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related