ultimate success, or determine the outcome of the legal dispute.” South Louisiana Bank v. Williams, 591 So.2d 375, 377 (La.App. 3d Cir.1991), writs denied, 596 So.2d 211 (La. 1992). * * * * * * Summary judgment is seldom appropriate for determinations based on subjective facts, such as motive, intent, good faith, knowledge and malice. Penalber, 550 So.2d at 583. (FNI9) As we put it in Penalber, summary judgment “is rarely appropriate for a determination based on subjective facts.” 550 So.2d at 583 (emphasis supplied). Nonetheless, Louisiana courts have recognized that, while “rare”, summary judgment may be granted on subjective intent issues when no issue of material fact exists concerning the pertinent intent. Simoneaux v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co., 483 So.2d 908, 912 (La.1986) (<HOLDING>); Carter v. BRMAP, 591 So.2d 1184, 1188
recognizing that the critical question is whether any present violation exists recognizing the difficulty of disposing of issues of discriminatory or retaliatory intent at the summary judgment stage holding that determining legislative intent is a question of law holding when reasonable minds cannot differ the question of comparative negligence is a question of law appropriate for summary judgment holding that sjummary judgment is an appropriate method for disposing of a ease wherein intent is a critical question