Case law

ASI Fed. Credit Union v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London Syndicate 1414 Subscribing to Policy FINFR1503374

259 So. 3d 552 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Nov 7, 2018

Specifically, Underwriters argues that the Policy's "Directors & Officers Exclusion Clause" clearly and unambiguously excludes coverage for ASI's claim, i.e. , the alleged theft of ASI's cash by the owner of LeoTran. … We find this statement insufficient to qualify as an admission or stipulation by Underwriters (which would obviate the certification requirement) as to the specific ATMWW/LeoTran contract to which ASI claims it was a third

Von Zonneveld Bros. & Philippo v. Cary

86 So. 2d 252 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Mar 20, 1956

The burden of proof shall rest upon the corporation to establish that it has complied with the laws of this state for doing business herein. … An examination of the contract clearly shows the plaintiff gave no warranty, express or implied, and would not be responsible in any way for the results of planting, forcing or flowering of any bulbs or roots which were sold

Smith v. Consolidated Underwriters

53 So. 2d 264 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · May 30, 1951

But if plaintiff was making the trip in the interest of his employers and in connection with the course and scope of the duties of his employment, then clearly he is entitled to compensation. … testimony of the witnesses, which was given with fairness and frankness, that he not only did not deny plaintiff’s authority to do the acts for which plaintiff contends in support of his claim, but, on the contrary, so qualified

Suarez v. Barney

2005 La.App. 4 Cir. 0671 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · May 9, 2005

These are the simple, straightforward requirements that are stated clearly and unequivocally in the state constitution. … Barney’s domicile, his principal establishment, was not on De-Montluzin Street for the one-year period preceding qualifying. The fact that Mr.

Strawder v. Zapata Haynie Corp.

94 La.App. 3 Cir. 453 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Nov 2, 1994

However, the trial court did qualify him as an expert. … The trial court concluded that there was not enough evidence to establish a common law marriage between Latia Clark and John Bartie and therefore dismissed Clark's claim.

Jacobs v. Sampson

16 La.App. 3 Cir. 506 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Nov 9, 2016

Dole of the subject car accident, which “establishes that [he] did not have any significant pain because of this accident.” … Undoubtedly, the record establishes that Mario was a pre-existing pain patient. 8 Dr.

Hogan v. Morgan

960 So. 2d 1024 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Apr 26, 2007

The right is not absolute; it is qualified by the rights of others. Angelo Iafrate Const., L.L.C. v. State ex rel. … For this reason, great deference is afforded the trier of fact in determinations of credibility, and accordingly, the "manifest error" or "clearly wrong" standard of review was established to preclude the de novo review of

MacK v. Evans

804 So. 2d 730 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Dec 5, 2001

Clearly, the detailed findings of the trial court stated in its Opinion support such a heightened burden, despite its statement regarding the erroneous standard of proof. … Mack testified straightforwardly that Evans had misled her to believe it was necessary for her to donate her interest in the real estate in order to qualify for supplemental security income benefits and, that after the property

Turner v. City of Monroe

634 So. 2d 981 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Mar 30, 1994

Once the plaintiff has established a prima facie case of discrimination, it is incumbent on the employer to prove that even with reasonable accommodation, the employee cannot perform the essential duties of the job. … Scope of Appellate Review The trial court's finding of fact will not be disturbed absent manifest error or unless it is clearly wrong. Stobart v. State through DOTD, 617 So.2d 880, 882 (La.1993).

Lewis v. Pine Belt Multipurpose Community Action Acquisition Agency, Inc.

139 So. 3d 562 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · May 7, 2014

all persons causing or contributing to the injury, death, or loss shall be determined, regardless of whether the person is a party to the action or a nonparty, and regardless of the person’s insolvency, ability to pay or immunity … The evidence established that Murphy Enterprises, the entity that provided the carnival rides, was responsible for erecting, operating and dismantling the rides.

Patrick Collins, Dawn Collins and Southshore Building Services v. Continuum Restorations services,l.L.C., Guideone National Insurance,company

Louisiana Court of Appeal · Apr 2, 2025

Appellants contend the trial court clearly ruled that Mr. … We further find that the lien waiver in and of itself does not address, clarify, or establish the relationship of the parties in this matter, as the waiver clearly defines “contractor” as inclusive of a subcontractor, and

Riser v. H.Y. Bell Memorial Apartments

669 So. 2d 689 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Feb 28, 1996

Riser did not “qualify” under either of these exceptions for a two-bedroom unit. Riser requested a downstairs apartment September 28, 1989, from Holden. … We cannot find the jury was clearly wrong in answering the one interrogatory that Riser was not handicapped. See the above quotes from the statute.

Hessifer v. Southern Equipment, Inc.

416 So. 2d 368 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Jun 29, 1982

I submit that the evidence in this case clearly establishes that the "dip and bump" created an unreasonable risk of harm to others and was, therefore, a defect in the highway. … On the other side of the scale the damages sustained by the plaintiff clearly establish the magnitude of the risk involved.

Griffith v. Young

62 So. 3d 856 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Apr 13, 2011

The Landry court further stated, 851 So.2d at 955 : Absent a qualifying privilege, any provocative or aggressive conduct on the part of the plaintiff should be incorporated into the allocation of fault by the trier of fact … Under the aggressor doctrine, a party could not recover tort damage for a battery committed on his person if the evidence established that his actions immediately before the altercation constituted a provocation sufficient

State v. Waldrop

2011 La.App. 1 Cir. 2363 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Jun 8, 2012

A law officer may testify as to matters within his personal knowledge acquired through experience without first being qualified as an expert. Kestle, 996 So.2d at 280 . … Specifically, the defendant contends that the State failed to establish that he understood his Miranda rights or that he was given his Miranda rights.

Christophe v. Southern Bridge Co.

250 So. 2d 822 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Jun 30, 1971

A laborer with this disability is clearly unable to compete in the labor market and is entitled to maximum compensation benefits. Since Knispel v. … Loupe and Farries are somewhat qualified. Following his examination of July 22, 1969, Dr.

State v. Pennison

763 So. 2d 671 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Dec 28, 1999

Moreover, even if motel room 148 could qualify as a "residence," it certainly could not qualify as the "private residence" required by La. R.S. 40:981.3(D). … Lastly, the seizure of the defendant and the challenged evidence inside room 148 also clearly survive Fisher analysis.

Bueche v. State, Department of Health & Hospitals

2000 La.App. 1 Cir. 1473 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Jun 21, 2002

statutory provisions; (2) In excess of the statutory authority of the agency; (3) Made upon unlawful procedure; (4) Affected by other error of law; (5) Arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly … Under Provision 1-1673, which re-asserts this presumption, the applicant/recipient must be given an opportunity to rebut the presumption by evidence that establishes “the transfer was solely for a reason other than to qualify

Fakier v. Picou

158 So. 2d 285 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Nov 12, 1963

John the Baptist failed to properly qualify for said office and this issue was raised in the case pending before the Court. … While it is true that section of LSA-R.S. 33 :2481 dealing with police is omitted from Article 14, Section 15.1(11) nevertheless a reading of the entire constitutional provision clearly shows it was the constitutional intent

State v. Francis

966 So. 2d 1096 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Oct 3, 2007

The supreme court reiterated that a defendant must "ask clearly and unequivocally to proceed pro se." Id. at 22. … In sum, we conclude that the defendant neither knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel nor did he clearly and unequivocally assert the right to self-representation.