Case law

Ledet v. QUALITY SHOPYARDS, INC.

615 So. 2d 990 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Mar 5, 1993

Thereafter, Quality filed a motion for summary judgment asserting that Ledet was its borrowed employee, and that, as such, it was immune from tort liability under the LHWCA. … Clearly, then, Quality possessed the power to discharge Ledet.

Sabrina Richardson v. New Orleans Police Department

Louisiana Court of Appeal · Mar 31, 2025

To establish a prima facie case of sex discrimination, Richardson needed to show (1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she was qualified for her 5 position; (3) she suffered … She was qualified for the position of probationary Police Captain based on her years of experience at NOPD and her previous position as Police Lieutenant.

Taylor v. Oakbourne Country Club

2002 La.App. 3 Cir. 1177 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · May 14, 2003

Finally, the trial court correctly determined that Taylor successfully established the third element of a prima facie case of age discrimination, that he was qualified to perform the job of assistant general manager, which … Based on the evidence presented at trial, including these testimonials, the trial court found that Taylor was clearly qualified to perform the job for which he was hired and had successfully established the third element

Riser v. AMERICAN MEDICAL INTERN., INC.

620 So. 2d 372 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · May 25, 1993

The plaintiff must first establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the doctor's treatment fell below the ordinary standard of care expected of physicians in his medical specialty, and must then establish a causal … `Some' expert testimony is necessary to establish this aspect of materiality because only a physician or other qualified expert is capable of judging what risk exist and the likelihood of occurrence.

Mobley v. Rego Co.

412 So. 2d 1143 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Mar 2, 1982

This latter fact certainly establishes that at this time counsel for appellant had knowledge that the litigation involved only the plaintiff and appellant. … It has been called "in reality, a form of sovereign immunity." Adams v. State of Alaska, 555 P.2d 235, 241 (Alaska 1971).

Peterson v. Parish of Jefferson

95 La.App. 5 Cir. 711 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Feb 27, 1996

Thus, we conclude that the plaintiff, as the person who paid the bill in question, is a qualified witness within the meaning of article 803(6). … Additionally, a bill is clearly a document that is produced in the ordinary course of business.

Roberts v. Warren

782 So. 2d 717 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Apr 4, 2001

Homan was clearly very knowledgeable in the field of dentistry, he was actively practicing in El Paso, Texas at the time of trial, and had never practiced in Lafayette or attended medical school in Louisiana. … There was no evidence introduced to establish the similarity of the two locales. Id. See also Herpin v. Witherspoon, 95-370 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/2/95) ; 664 So.2d 515 .

Danos Tree Serv., LLC v. Proride Trailers, LLC

255 So. 3d 1078 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Jul 10, 2018

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR Appellants assign the following as error: (1) The trial court was clearly wrong in granting summary judgment in this matter. (2) The trial court was clearly wrong in ruling that Jason Jarreau was liable … When the defendant intends in good faith to deny only a part of or to qualify an allegation of fact, he shall admit so much of it as is true and material and shall deny or qualify the remainder. (Emphasis added).

State v. Free

493 So. 2d 781 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Aug 20, 1986

The court noted that the value of hypnosis has not been so "clearly established" as to outweigh its potential for abuse or misuse at the expense of the accused. [8] We make no attempt here to summarize each of the many scientific … Culpepper, supra, the 5th Circuit applied the balancing test of Catanese and reached the result that the value of hypnosis in refreshing a witness's memory had not been "clearly established."

Burrell v. Schlesinger

459 So. 2d 1195 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Oct 24, 1984

The statute does not provide "immunity" to contractors. … Trial evidence establishes that the pile driving activity occurred on August 22, 1980. At trial defense counsel objected to plaintiff's counsel's questioning that the damage occurred on August 22nd.

Jenkins v. Baldwin

801 So. 2d 485 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Aug 29, 2001

wrong based on the evidence, or clearly without evidentiary support. … This Court amended the judgment, also allocating 45 percent of fault to the State, which was dismissed because of its statutory immunity.

Johnfroe v. Children's Hosp.

537 So. 2d 383 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Dec 29, 1988

Plaintiffs charge all defendants with malice, recklessness, indifference, publication of this vicious, clearly unfounded *385 charge of criminal behavior on the part of plaintiffs which is defamatory per se." … Mary and John Doe and XYZ Insurance Company were apparently never served with citation. [2] We need not discuss any possible immunity from civil liability provided by La.R.S. 14:403 since we have resolved the appeal on these

Grant v. Allstate Ins. Co.

696 So. 2d 275 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Jun 4, 1997

court, and (2) the appellate court must further determine that the record establishes that the finding is clearly wrong (manifestly erroneous). … Jewell, who was qualified as an expert in forest pathology, that the tree had been dead for at least three years prior to the accident, maybe longer. Mr.

Annique Johnson v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Louisiana Court of Appeal · May 2, 2018

Thus, they did not qualify as “third persons” because they were not legally liable to pay the employee damages because of his work-related automobile accident. … State Farm 5 is clearly entitled to judgment as a matter of law in this matter.

State v. Mitchell

476 So. 2d 825 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Sep 16, 1985

As indicated above, the competency of an expert witness is a question of fact within the sound discretion of the trial court, and its ruling will not be disturbed unless clearly wrong. State v. … Statute 15:466, the test of the competency of an expert is his knowledge of the subject about which he is called upon to express an opinion; before any witness can give evidence as an expert, his competency must have been established

Giefers v. Negri

2 La. App. 156 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Apr 27, 1925

Plaintiff, through its duly qualified receiver, sues defendant for a balance due on two promissory notes, long since matured, and which are made part of the petition' and which are executed by defendant to the order of the … The law and the evidence is clearly in favor of plaintiff. We see no serious defense to this suit.

Marin v. City of New Orleans

562 So. 2d 1126 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · May 31, 1990

R.S. 33:5051) amounted to a common law dedication conveying only a servitude, not ownership, to the public, where the intent of the grantor was not clearly expressed. … The Buisson plan has been an official record for more than thirty years and therefore qualifies as an ancient document. R.S. 13:3729.

Todd v. COX COMMUNICATIONS CENTRAL II, INC.

2007 La.App. 1 Cir. 0737 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Dec 21, 2007

The court said that statements made to the Office of Employment Security during the hearing on Todd's claim for unemployment benefits and any statements made regarding the ongoing investigation are clearly entitled to a qualified … Jurisprudence establishes that communications between an employer and the Office of Employment Security generally enjoy a qualified privilege. Wright v.

Coastal Cargo Company LLC v. Board of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans

Louisiana Court of Appeal · Feb 8, 2024

A state agency does not have that same immunity though. See La. R.S. 13:5105(B). … Article VI, Section 43, Part IV, clearly did not have the purpose of giving deep water ports a status of something other than a political subdivision of the State of Louisiana.

Paternostro v. Falgoust

897 So. 2d 19 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Sep 17, 2004

Motions to Terminate, Enroll, and Substitute Counsel The jurisprudence clearly establishes that motions to withdraw or enroll as counsel or to substitute counsel are not considered formal steps before the court in the prosecution … Therefore, we find that plaintiff failed to establish that his requests for production of documents directed to non-parties qualified as steps in the prosecution of his suit.