Case law

Molaison v. Lukinovich

13 La.App. 5 Cir. 781 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · May 28, 2014

could use the “Section 1033” election, a provision of the tax code that allows such landowners the ability to defer taxes on the proceeds of the sale in the takings litigation if the proceeds were “rolled over” into another qualifying … The facts in the instant case are starkly distinguishable from those in Marrogi and clearly implicate the policy considerations stated in Marrogi favoring witness immunity. While Mr.

State v. Woodfin

539 So. 2d 645 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Jan 18, 1989

She clearly remembered leaving her home with her friend in her husband's truck. Her friend was driving the truck. She described this in detail, along with other events before and after the accident. … The defendant must first establish the admissibility of this testimony out of the presence of the jury.

LaCroix v. STATE EX REL. DEPT. OF TRANSP.

477 So. 2d 1246 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Oct 10, 1985

However, the extent of its right of way in this area is not established in the record. … Clearly, this accident took place in a rural setting. Because of this site's popularity, we believe it warrants being termed a recreational area. Members of the general public swam in this creek without charge.

Darville v. Texaco, Inc.

442 So. 2d 1246 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Dec 8, 1983

Darville and her children are limited to workmen's compensation benefits unless they can qualify under R.S. 23:1032. … Tortorich, 397 So.2d 475 (La.1981), stated, regarding R.S. 23:1032, that the "... principal legislative aim ... was to broaden the class of defendants to be granted immunity from suits by injured employees in tort ..."

Jones v. Francis Romero, Inc.

345 So. 2d 1286 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · May 13, 1977

trial court erred in its instructions to the jury on the definition of a statutory employee; (2) the jury's finding that plaintiff was the statutory employee of Francis Romero, Incorporated was manifestly erroneous and was clearly … Heebe's Bakery, Inc . case was dictum is without merit since the clearly established and following jurisprudential rule in Louisiana is that tort immunity is granted to a party found to be a "statutory employer".

Raney v. Walter O. Moss Regional Hosp.

629 So. 2d 485 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Dec 8, 1993

Raney developed an immunity to hepatitis "B." … The trial court found that the evidence established that Ms.

Turner v. Lafayette City-Parish Consolidated Government

14 La.App. 3 Cir. 384 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Dec 23, 2014

With regard to the federal claims, the City asserted, in part, that the plaintiff would be unable to show the clearly established right that was allegedly violated, that the conduct of the officers | .qviolated that right … It further suggested that its showing demonstrated the unavailability of punitive damages and, in turn, the availability of its defense of qualified immunity due to reasonableness of the officer’s actions in light of the

Harris v. State ex rel. Department of Public Safety & Corrections

2005 La.App. 1 Cir. 2647 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Nov 3, 2006

Clearly, then, Ms. … Harris may be able to establish at trial. B. Workers’ Compensation Ms.

Clay v. International Harvester Co.

674 So. 2d 398 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · May 8, 1996

Clearly, some portions of Mayeux's testimony were cumulative of North's testimony. … Wigmore, Evidence in Trials at Common Law § 1080a, at 195-201 (Chadbourn rev. 1972), the trend of recent decades is clearly against such recognition. C.

Miller-Douglas v. KILLER

579 So. 2d 491 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Apr 30, 1991

Therefore, the appellees sufficiently established that the statements made by Keller about appellant were made in good faith. The other two elements of qualified privilege were also established in this case. … Keller, as hospital administrator, clearly had a duty to report complaints about the alleged unprofessional conduct of a physician working at the hospital.

Quaker Hill v. Guin

95 So. 2d 370 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Apr 26, 1957

The contention is made by its counsel it is engaged exclusively in interstate business and enjoys immunity from the Louisiana statute under the commerce clause of the Federal Constitution. … Mills Novelty Company illustrate clearly how transactions may be characterized with an intra-state character.

Delery v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America

643 So. 2d 807 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Sep 29, 1994

the evidence or clearly without evidentiary support. … This sentence, the court concluded, clearly suggests that fault should be allocated to immune employers. Id. at 831 . Ironically though, the result in Gauthier is the same as Guidry .

Muhammad v. New Orleans Police Dept.

2000 La.App. 4 Cir. 1034 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Jul 11, 2001

While these facts must be clearly established, they need not be established beyond a reasonable doubt. Cittadino, supra. … They claim that City policy clearly establishes that sick leave is a privilege granted exclusively for illness and that Civil Service rules and regulations restrict its uses.

Nathaniel Roy Williams v. George Harrison

Louisiana Court of Appeal · Aug 5, 2022

On the merits of that claim, the evidence clearly showed that although at the time of his qualifying, Harrison claimed a homestead exemption on property located outside the municipality of Delhi located at 364 Highway … For example, the evidence did not establish Mr. Harrison paid rent, established utilities, or received postal mail at that address. The record established Mr.

Jenkins v. CNA Ins. Co.

98 La.App. 1 Cir. 0022 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Dec 28, 1998

Recognizing that the general trend among the states was toward the abolition of the interspousal immunity, the court declined to adopt or give effect to the doctrine of interspousal immunity within the admiralty law. … Byrd nor any public policy consideration establishes that liability insurance coverage for the negligent operation of a boat is mandated by federal admiralty law.

Da'vyta Gray v. Town of Ringgold, Bienville Parish Sheriff's Office, The Bienville Parish Police Jury

Louisiana Court of Appeal · Oct 1, 2025

clearly on the face of the pleadings. … There may be some liability on the part of the BPPJ; however, discovery is the proper procedure to establish the extent or degree, if any, to which each party is liable to the appellant.

Wiltz v. Brothers Petroleum, L.L.C.

13 La.App. 5 Cir. 332 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Apr 23, 2014

Statutory and jurisprudential precedent clearly establish a substantial association between the prohibition of possession and consumption of alcohol by minors and drunk-driving related harm. |12In Manuel v. … Testimony at trial clearly established that Winn-Dixie had actual knowledge of the amount of alcohol, which was astonishing even considering the number of teenagers present.

Alexander v. La. State Board of Private Investigator Examiners

211 So. 3d 544 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Feb 17, 2017

R.S. 9:2792.4, the doctrine of discretionary immunity, and the doctrine of quasi-judicial immunity. 3. The judgment in Mr. … The appellate court should not disturb the trial court’s findings unless the record establishes that those findings are manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong. Rando , 08-1163 at p. 20, 16 So.3d at 1082; Stobart v.

Barto v. Franchise Enterprises, Inc.

588 So. 2d 1353 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Oct 30, 1991

The opinion establishes judicially a loophole in the exclusivity provision not unlike the "executive officer" loophole. … In conclusion, the court found that the employee's assault was clearly motivated by his personal considerations.

Welch v. AG Edwards & Sons, Inc.

677 So. 2d 520 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · May 15, 1996

Manifest disregard of the law" by arbitrators is a judicially created ground for vacating an arbitration award and refers to error which was obvious and capable of being readily and instantly perceived by an average person qualified … Thus, the doctrine of "manifest disregard of the law" clearly requires more than simply an error of law on the part of an arbitrator.