Case law

State v. Thomas

10 La.App. 3 Cir. 792 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Feb 2, 2011

, writ granted on other grounds, 438 So.2d 1113 (La.1983), appeal after remand, 457 So.2d 1251 (La.App. 1 Cir.1984), appeal after remand, 471 So.2d 1041 (La.App. 1 Cir.1985), the supreme court concluded that the statute clearly … Defendant asserts the critical question is whether the State had enough information to establish that he fired the gunshot that hit Perioux.

Gordon v. LSU BD. OF SUP'RS

669 So. 2d 736 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Mar 1, 1996

However, the court found that the evidence failed to establish that this delay caused any damage or injury to Katherine Gordon. … The trial court's finding is not manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong and, accordingly, is affirmed.

Gulling v. EI Du Pont De Nemours and Company

228 So. 2d 750 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Dec 1, 1969

Plaintiff has sought to overcome this burden by testimony to the effect that following the accident he was paid full wages for doing a job that he was not qualified to do, i. e., reading blueprints. … Clearly when the above cited jurisprudence is applied to his factual conclusions there is no manifest error in his judgment, and the same must be and is hereby affirmed.

Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Grant Parish Sheriff's Department

350 So. 2d 236 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Nov 23, 1977

In this summary judgment proceeding, the facts as recited above were established by the pleadings and the affidavit of Sheriff L. R. Hataway. The stated facts are not disputed. … Clearly, it is the Sheriff, individually, and not the "Parish Sheriff's Department" that is constitutionally designated as the chief law enforcement officer of the Parish.

George v. Department of Fire

93 La.App. 4 Cir. 2421 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · May 17, 1994

She is qualified to testify that the tests were conducted properly because that is her specific responsibility. Ms. Pizzo further testified to the testing performed and the analytical methods utilized. … Although the facts must be clearly established, they need not be established beyond a reasonable doubt as in a criminal case. Barquet, 620 So.2d at 505 ; Cittadino, 558 So.2d at 1315 .

Stephenson v. Van Vleit

693 So. 2d 858 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Apr 30, 1997

We find that the record and the documents filed in support of Zurich's motion for summary judgment are sufficient to resolve any material issues of fact and that State Farm did not present sufficient evidence to establish … There is scant jurisprudence concerning what qualifies as a "substitute" policy. Cases have held that it is possible to have a substitution of insureds and/or vehicles without effecting a new policy. Id.

Boudreaux v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co.

950 So. 2d 839 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Nov 3, 2006

However, he also qualified that statement by noting, "Trying to translate my lone opinion into the standard of care is not a valid proposition." … Given that her own medical expert stated clearly, "I do not believe Dr.

Daniel v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc.

2002 La.App. 4 Cir. 2427 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Dec 3, 2003

Daniel, failed to establish the existence of a work related disability. … Robert Segura, who was qualified at trial as a specialist in industrial medicine. Beginning on January 30, 1986 (the day after Mr.

Guillory v. Soloco, Inc.

570 So. 2d 139 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Nov 7, 1990

An odd lot claimant need not be absolutely helpless to qualify for total disability. … Considering all the evidence, particularly the relative qualifications of the lay and expert witnesses, we find that plaintiff established a prima facie case under the odd lot doctrine.

Scherer v. PNK (Bossier City), Inc.

112 So. 3d 931 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Mar 20, 2013

Knox Tumlin (“Tumlin”) was qualified as the plaintiffs’ expert in this case. … Finally, the defense established that no trip and fall accidents had occurred at this location.

Lucas v. St. Frances Cabrini Hosp.

562 So. 2d 999 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · May 23, 1990

PLAINTIFF DAMAGES AS FOLLOWS: $ 300,000" *1002 Defendant appealed and the Louisiana Patients' Compensation Fund intervened in the appeal since they are legally obligated to pay part of plaintiff's recovery since defendant is a qualified … From this evidence, we cannot say that the jury was clearly wrong in finding that Nurse Roberts breached her duty of care.

Eakin v. Eakin

973 So. 2d 873 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Dec 19, 2007

In April 2002, Hoffman Consulting filed Article of Incorporation qualifying to do business in Louisiana. On June 3, 2002, Samuel executed a promissory note borrowing $250,000.000 from Farmer's (the Farmer's note). … "An agency relationship is never presumed; it must be clearly shown. The burden of proving apparent authority is on the party seeking to bind the principal." Id. at 509 .

Emoakemeh v. Southern University

654 So. 2d 474 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Apr 7, 1995

However, Southern contends that its employees' acts were clearly outside the scope of their employment responsibilities. … *478 that the finding is clearly wrong.

Greer v. Lammico

779 So. 2d 894 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Dec 22, 2000

An appellate court may not set aside a jury's findings of fact in the absence of manifest error or unless it is clearly wrong. … According to the plaintiffs, it was established at trial that four factors are necessary in order to make this determination.

Louisiana Ass'n of Educators v. St. Tammany Parish School Board

430 So. 2d 1144 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Apr 5, 1983

It asserts that, pursuant to LSA-R.S. 17:81, it is the sole authority for establishing teachers’ salaries. … It is only when it is clearly shown that the action of such a board is beyond its authority or is arbitrary, unreasonable, or fraudulent that a court is justified in interfering. ...

Richardson v. Lagniappe Hosp. Corp.

764 So. 2d 1094 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · May 15, 2000

In a medical malpractice action, opinions of expert witnesses who are members of the medical profession and who are qualified to testify on the subject are necessary to determine whether or not physicians possessed the requisite … 1999, the trial court filed an order stating that the matter came before the court on a motion for summary judgment, and was continued *1101 to be reset by agreement or by further order of the court. [3] The record then clearly

Dorsett v. Johnson

786 So. 2d 897 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · May 9, 2001

No attorney fees were awarded as no evidence was introduced at trial to establish the amount of attorney fees. … The trial court was not clearly wrong in denying the claim for these damages. Attorney Fees Dorsett argues in her third assignment of error that the trial court erred in denying an award of attorney fees.

Smith v. Tierney

906 So. 2d 586 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Feb 16, 2005

She worked part-time as a waitress, but was seemingly unable to manage her financial affairs or to establish a steady residence. … Caruso's findings, the trial court clearly weighed and considered many factors in making its determination that removing M.T. from her longtime home with the Smiths would result in substantial harm to the child.

Simmons v. Clark

8 La.App. 5 Cir. 431 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Jan 27, 2009

Vivian and Malcolm argue the failure of competent expert evidence to establish the contemporaneous value at the time of the act of sale precludes the finding by the trial court. … Although Vivian testified that she told Malcolm to execute whatever documents were necessary, that is not sufficient to establish a mandate to purchase immovable property in Louisiana.

Darcy Driver, Deann Driver & Danielle Driver-Roussel, Individually and On Behalf of Their Parents, Albert Driver, Jr. and Kathie Driver v. Willis Knighton Pierremont Health Center

Louisiana Court of Appeal · Feb 26, 2025

that the fact finder is clearly wrong or manifestly erroneous. … We find that the jury’s verdict is clearly wrong, manifestly erroneous, and must be reversed. The record reflects testimony that established the standard of care owed by the defendants to Mr. Driver.