Case law

Imbraguglio v. Bernadas

968 So. 2d 745 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Sep 21, 2007

Pursuant to the statute, once it was established that Mr. … Therefore, unless he has established a new domicile or has registered to vote outside the Parish he cannot be considered to have vacated his domicile or residence for purposes of qualifying for the Office of Sheriff of St

Rory Anthony Miller and Jessica Eustis Miller v. Acadian Ambulance Service of New Orleans, L.L.C. and Xyz Insurance Company

Louisiana Court of Appeal · Feb 4, 2022

If an injured fireman qualifies by sickness or disability, he may be entitled to both with the statutory credit; if he does not qualify for either, he is entitled to neither. … error” or unless it is “clearly wrong.”

Margo Stoute v. Lafayette Parish School Board

Louisiana Court of Appeal · May 18, 2022

Qualey, only, with prejudice, based on the qualified immunity from suit provided to school employees pursuant to La.R.S. 17:439(A). For the following reasons, we affirm. … We’re stating facts under which would establish that specific guidelines of the school board were not followed, and so the immunity does not apply in these situations.

Delahaye v. Delahaye

2004 La.App. 1 Cir. 0310 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Dec 30, 2004

The record clearly establishes that the Senior Nylic payments are compensation for Mr. Delahaye’s past performance and services to the company, almost all of which occurred during the existence of the community. … He claims the excluded evidence was critical to establish Ms.

Lavalais v. STATE, EX REL. DOTD

26 So. 3d 895 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Dec 9, 2009

[t]he appellate court must further determine that the record establishes that the finding is not clearly wrong (manifestly erroneous). Mart v. Hill, 505 So.2d 1120, 1127 (La. 1987) (quoting Arceneaux v. … Therefore, we find that the trial court's decision in this case was manifestly erroneous and clearly wrong.

Chauncy v. Allen

2015 La.App. 1 Cir. 0874 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Feb 26, 2016

They also contended that if the State was ultimately successful in its affirmative defense of immunity, along with the statutory cap on the State’s liability, then the UM policy provisions should be triggered to allow them … been no challenge to the State’s admission that it is a self-insurer or the State’s solvency, and the State owns the vehicle that the Chauncys allege is uninsured or underinsured, Mountain Laurel reasons that its UM policy clearly

Vanna Darlene McManus, Etc. v. State of La., Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries

Louisiana Court of Appeal · Mar 10, 2010

Miller, 04-1199 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/27/05), 900 So.2d 1135], and qualified immunity such as that conferred upon government officials performing discretionary functions [see Jackson v. State ex rel. … The statutes at issue provide “qualified” immunity not “absolute” immunity— thus, whether or not the State was immune from suit called for the trier of fact to make a factual determination: whether, under the facts of

State v. Anderson

540 So. 2d 974 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Feb 22, 1989

The movies contained on the video tape in question are clearly commercially produced and as such are covered by this statute. … However, the general rule is that relative and qualifying clauses are to be applied to the words or phrase immediately preceding and are not to be construed as extending to or *977 including others more remote.

Sandifer v. Wise

780 So. 2d 1099 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Feb 7, 2001

She agreed that as a family practitioner she was not as qualified to make a diagnosis of Parkinson's Disease as Dr. Daniel Trahant, a board certified neurologist would be. Dr. … Clearly, there may be cases in which plaintiff need not offer expert testimony to sustain this burden of proof.

Ho v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co.

862 So. 2d 1278 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Dec 31, 2003

LAW AND ANALYSIS The standard of review for findings of the trial court has been clearly established in this circuit. … Furthermore, Louisiana law requires plaintiff to prove its claim to the satisfaction of the court, and places the burden on the plaintiff to establish every fact essential to recovery and to establish that the claim falls

Parekh v. Mittadar

2011 La.App. 1 Cir. 1201 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Jun 20, 2012

In seeking a declaration of coverage under an insurance policy, Louisiana law places the burden on the plaintiff to establish every fact essential to recovery and to establish that the claim falls within the policy coverage … In this case, the vehicle was clearly made available for the “regular use of the renter,” Mr.

Green v. Evangeline Parish Police Jury

13 La.App. 3 Cir. 274 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Oct 9, 2013

First, the plaintiff must bear the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination. Id. … that the trial court’s findings were clearly wrong or manifestly erroneous.

Ledet v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Co.

199 So. 2d 7 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · May 1, 1967

The expert for the plaintiff, although better qualified than the defense expert, admits that his calculations could be incorrect one way or another as much as 4%. *12 “Mr. … “This principle is again clearly stated in the case of Marler v.

Howe v. Adam

6 Teiss. 400 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Jun 21, 1909

But the evidence (taken principally by commission) does not establish with anything like legal certainty that the vessel was detained as much as three days exclusively by defendants’ breach of contract. … the testimony of witnesses taken nearly three years afterwards, one of whom clearly testified from hearsay, another of whom qualified his statement ex in-dustria as only “to the best of his recollection,” and the last of

State v. Guillory

715 So. 2d 400 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Mar 11, 1998

a significant period of time to establish a prima facie case. … It is within the sole province of the jury to decide what the testimony has established and what it has not established. State v. Lee, 364 So.2d 1024 (La.1978).

Wagnon v. Hebert

520 So. 2d 1136 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Dec 9, 1987

James Klinger, a mechanic employed by Seibarth's, was qualified as an expert mechanic by the court. … It is well established law in Louisiana that to maintain an *1138 action of redhibition, the plaintiff must prove that the thing contained a hidden vice, not apparent by ordinary inspection, which subsequently rendered the

Rivera-Santos v. Rivera-Santos

862 So. 2d 480 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Dec 10, 2003

Rivera-Santos clearly established the first prong of the three-part test of Hare, i.e., that he had a "fairly substantial increase" in his post-community earnings. … These documents, together with his testimony, established that Mr.

McGee v. Police Jury of Caddo Parish

63 So. 2d 153 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Jan 17, 1953

For this reason it was provided . that separate ballot boxes should be had for the ballots of electors residing in the municipality or separate precincts established in the municipality, and in either case separate polls … The question has been clearly raised here and we prefer to adhere to the views expressed. In view of our holding we do not find it necessary to pass upon the other issues raised in this case.

Gordon v. City of New Orleans

430 So. 2d 234 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Apr 4, 1983

The record in this case clearly establishes that the appellant was contributorily negligent. … (Emphasis added) This statement clearly establishes the appellant's subjective knowledge of the defect in the sidewalk. It also shows that he voluntarily encountered the risk which that defect presented.

Moore v. Safeway, Inc.

700 So. 2d 831 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Nov 22, 1996

Accordingly, we find the jury's determination was not manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong. B. … The allocation of fifteen percent of the fault to Safway is not clearly wrong. D.