Case law

Reichert v. State, Dept. of Transp. and Development

694 So. 2d 193 · Supreme Court of Louisiana · May 20, 1997

The extent to which certain documents are discoverable or admissible is clearly a procedural right. … This witness was not qualified as an expert in highway design, construction and maintenance.

State v. 2003 Infiniti G35 VIN JNKCV51E93MO24167

27 So. 3d 824 · Supreme Court of Louisiana · Jan 20, 2010

R.S. 40:2610 clearly establishes a thirty-day filing deadline that cannot be extended under any circumstances; prescribes the necessary form of the claim; and sets forth the required content of the averments with unambiguous … R.S. 40:2616(A) clearly delineates the proper method for reaching such a determination, and provides, in pertinent part, “[u]pon a determination by the court that the district attorney’s written application establishes the

Fitzpatrick v. Daily States Publishing Co.

48 La. Ann. 1116 · Supreme Court of Louisiana · Jun 1, 1896

Whether 'this work is according to contract and specification an Investigation can very easily establish.” … The constitutional provision is designed to insure immunity for the expression of opinion. And it makes no difference whatever whether.the opinion be expressed orally or in print.

City of Shreveport v. Smith

130 La. 126 · Supreme Court of Louisiana · Jan 29, 1912

This term, in its common and popular ' usage, includes such liquors as beer, ale, porter and stout, and is clearly inapplicable to wines and cider.” 23 Cyc. pp. 57, 60, 61. “Liquor. … The learned counsel for plaintiff think that the conclusion thus reached does not establish a precedent which can be applied in the case at bar.

Duffy v. City of New Orleans

49 La. Ann. 114 · Supreme Court of Louisiana · Dec 14, 1896

Whether the Legislature can pass a valid act to establish a commission for the port of New Orleans, define their powers and duties, provide a revenue therefor, is the question before us. … This board is not a body corporate with privileges and immunities such as public corporations must have.

Hearty v. Harris

574 So. 2d 1234 · Supreme Court of Louisiana · Jan 28, 1991

Hertz Corp., 254 La. 1075 , 229 So.2d 104 (1969), we concluded an omnibus clause in Hertz's insurance policy did not apply to a driver who was not listed as a qualified driver in the rental agreement. … Instead, the courts have treated each of the four methods listed above as a distinct means of establishing proof of financial responsibility. B.

Bujol v. Entergy Services, Inc.

922 So. 2d 1113 · Supreme Court of Louisiana · Mar 10, 2006

Because we have this duty, we must determine whether the verdict was clearly wrong based on the evidence, or clearly without evidentiary support. Id. … that the finding is clearly wrong (manifestly erroneous).

City of New Orleans v. Board of Fire Commissioners

50 La. Ann. 1000 · Supreme Court of Louisiana · Jun 20, 1898

The three members of the Board of Civil Service Commissioners, provided for by the act, who had been appointed by. the mayor and confirmed by the council, qualified by taking the oath on the 29th of January, 1897, and partially … It includes within the scope of the civil service all positions (except chief engineer) “ in the fire force” only, and leaves *1005 untouched by the civil service other positions not clearly within the meaning of the words

New Orleans Rosenbush Claims Service, Inc. v. City of New Orleans

653 So. 2d 538 · Supreme Court of Louisiana · Apr 10, 1995

Two of the other bids were disqualified, leaving Rosenbush as the lowest qualified bidder. … In each of these cases, the court considered whether "just cause" to reject any and all bids had been established.

State v. Richey

258 La. 1094 · Supreme Court of Louisiana · Jun 7, 1971

The testimony of all three parties established that the warning was not given until after the accused made his statement and Reiszner had identified him. … Mitchell’s testimony on the ground of lack of qualification as a fingerprint expert were good, and that the trial court was manifestly in error in qualifying him.

State v. Batson

108 La. 479 · Supreme Court of Louisiana · Jul 1, 1902

The document P 12 is a written contract between Ward Earle and a land company, which has no relevancy to the prosecution or the defense in this case, the sole purpose of the offer being to establish a comparison between the … Justice Wyley, as the organ of the court, saying: “It is true, American decisions are not uniform on the subject, but as the rule has been so clearly settled, and upon the highest authority, in England, we think it best to

Bayou Pierre Farms v. Bat Farms Partners

693 So. 2d 1158 · Supreme Court of Louisiana · May 20, 1997

A minimum contract price of fifty-five dollars per acre was established in the event the price per lint pound times the number of pounds did not exceed $55.00 per acre. … This proviso clearly applies to both the "statutory privileges" and the "perfected security interests" that the statute addresses.

Johnson v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co.

425 So. 2d 224 · Supreme Court of Louisiana · Jan 17, 1983

Also, under the principles established in Fontenot v. Hanover Ins. … Clearly they cannot each recover $20,000.00 from the tortfeasor who only caused a total of $20,000.00 of damages.

State v. McIlvaine

245 La. 649 · Supreme Court of Louisiana · Jan 20, 1964

Varón, Searches, Seizures and Immunities, v. 1, p. 267 (1961).. As to our Louisiana constitutional provision on the issuance of search warrants, this court said in State v. … Norris, 161 La. 988 , 109 So. 787 : *660 «* * * The constitutional inhibition against the issuance of search warrants .without probable cause does not undertake to command the lawmaker to establish a definition or formula

Aurienne v. Mt. Olivet, Inc.

153 La. 451 · Supreme Court of Louisiana · Dec 29, 1922

Barnett, a notary public, in and for the city and parish of Orleans, state of Louisiana, aforesaid, duly commissioned and qualified, and in the presence of the witnesses hereinafter named and undersigned, personally appeared … Aside from the presumption which we. refer to, the case comes clearly within the rules established by the Civil Code.

Fontenot v. John I. Hay Co.

228 La. 1031 · Supreme Court of Louisiana · Dec 12, 1955

Shadows must not be mistaken for substance when we consider a claim of immunity from taxation. … In the instant case, the right to tax is clearly manifest. For the reasons assigned, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

State v. Investigation

245 La. 193 · Supreme Court of Louisiana · Nov 25, 1963

Clearly the order of the trial judge in this case was improvidently granted, for neither the Attorney General of Louisiana nor any district attorney has the right or authority to invoke the provisions of this statute unless … uncontrolled, and illegal public airing on the pretext that such scrutiny may possibly ferret out some crime or misdemeanor that has been committed by some unknown person or firm, even though the rights, privileges, and immunities

State v. Goldstein

187 La. 353 · Supreme Court of Louisiana · Apr 26, 1937

The statement of the district attorney was made to serve as a predicate for the introduction by the State of testimony showing certain acts or conduct on the part of the defendant as would tend to establish his guilty knowledge … Evidence of that character was clearly admissible. Code CrimJProc. art. 446; State v. Colombo, 171 La. 475 , 131 So. 464 .

Britton v. Bush

31 La. 264 · Supreme Court of Louisiana · Mar 15, 1879

Plaintiff relies on the proceedings and judgment against William Bush as establishing the necessary interruption or suspension. But we do not think they are adequate for that purpose. … And after clearly stating the same general theory, Laurent, in his recent and valuable commentary, applies it as follows": “One of the co-debtors recognizes a debt which is subject to a short prescription.

Louisiana Ry. & Navigation Co. v. Sarpy

117 La. 156 · Supreme Court of Louisiana · Jun 4, 1906

These exceptions were clearly dilatory, and, in view of the agreement which contemplated an answer, were properly overruled. 3. … The trial judge excluded the testimony of several witnesses, called by the defendant to prove the value of the land, on the ground that they were not qualified to testify on that subject J. A.