 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Shoemaker v. City of Shreveport2/24/1999
ed in deciding a motion for summary judgment." Our emphasis.
Even without considering that portion of Dr. Lambert's affidavit referring to the Schumpert records, the remainder of his affidavit and the affidavits of Cook and Evans were sufficient to carry Shreveport's burden as the moving party. Shreveport successfully pointed out to the court the absence of factual support not only for Shoemaker's claim that Shreveport failed to properly train the paramedics, but also for Shoemaker's claim that the paramedics should have transported him to the LSU Medical Center instead of Schumpert. In response, Shoemaker failed to produce factual support sufficient to establish that he would be able to satisfy his evidentiary burden of proof at trial. His opposition included only arguments, not factual support. No documents setting forth specific facts, whether affidavits, depositions, answers to interrogatories or otherwise, were submitted with Shoemaker's opposition to the peremptory exception and summary judgment.
CONCLUSION
Shoemaker failed to produce factual support sufficient to establish that he would be able to satisfy his evidentiary burden of proof at trial. Accordingly, summary judgment was properly granted. Because we conclude that the trial court properly granted summary judgment, it is unnecessary for this court to address that portion of the judgment granting Shreveport's exception of no right of action.
DECREE
At appellant's costs, the judgment is AFFIRMED.
Page 1 2 3 4 Louisiana DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|