Whittington v. Hospice Care Services of Louisiana, L.L.C.

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Whittington v. Hospice Care Services of Louisiana, L.L.C.

172 So. 3d 588, 2015 La. LEXIS 660, 2015 WL 1757932

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedApril 17, 2015

DocketNo. 2014-C-2613

StatusPublished

This text of 172 So. 3d 588 (Whittington v. Hospice Care Services of Louisiana, L.L.C.) 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

Whittington v. Hospice Care Services of Louisiana, L.L.C., 172 So. 3d 588, 2015 La. LEXIS 660, 2015 WL 1757932 (La. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Writ granted. The judgment of the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, is reversed and set aside, and the judgment of the trial court, insofar as it granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, is vacated. We find there are material issues of fact that preclude defendants’ entitlement to summary judgment. Specifically, and as explained by Judge Welch in his dissent, we find that defendants’ motion for summary judgment should have been [589]*589denied, because there are genuine issues of material fact that exist and that can provide a factual basis to support plaintiffs claims at this stage of the case. See La. Code Civ. P. art. 966(C)(1). This case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

GUIDRY, J., dissents and would deny the writ application. J. CLARK would deny the writ application.

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

PER CURIAM.

Writ granted. The judgment of the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, is reversed and set aside, and the judgment of the trial court, insofar as it granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, is vacated. We find there are material issues of fact that preclude defendants’ entitlement to summary judgment. Specifically, and as explained by Judge Welch in his dissent, we find that defendants’ motion for summary judgment should have been [589]*589denied, because there are genuine issues of material fact that exist and that can provide a factual basis to support plaintiffs claims at this stage of the case. See La. Code Civ. P. art. 966(C)(1). This case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

GUIDRY, J., dissents and would deny the writ application. J. CLARK would deny the writ application.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

172 So. 3d 588, 2015 La. LEXIS 660, 2015 WL 1757932, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whittington-v-hospice-care-services-of-louisiana-llc-la-2015.