Case law

Mashanna Gallo v. Greenpath International, Inc.

Louisiana Court of Appeal · Dec 16, 2021

App. 2-12.4(1)); (2) failure to include a jurisdictional statement, the date of the judgment appealed to establish the timeliness of the appeal or an assertion that the appeal is from a final … To qualify for vacation, the staff must be regular fulltime staff and must work at least 32 hours per week.

Allstate Indemnity Co. v. Wooley

2006 La.App. 1 Cir. 1388 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · May 4, 2007

Such an exception appears to be fairly established in Title 47 tax code jurisprudence, such as BP Oil Co., 93-1109 at p. 20, 651 So.2d at 1334 9 and St. … “There clearly was a genuine issue of .material fact as to BP’s good-faith belief that it had fulfilled its tax obligation.” .

State v. Burnes

997 So. 2d 906 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Dec 17, 2008

Burnes points to no evidence that clearly controverts the jury's credibility determination. The evidence clearly shows that multiple gunshots were fired into the van from the same firearm. … Nothing in the record clearly controverts this determination.

State of Louisiana in the Interest of A.J. J.

Louisiana Court of Appeal · Jul 12, 2023

Clearly, as the case was presented to the factfinder, the Juvenile continued to contest whether he took any violent action. … ANALYSIS “Proof which establishes only possibility, speculation, or unsupported probability does not suffice to establish a claim.” Todd v. State Through Dep’t of Soc. Servs., Office of Cmty.

Blake v. Mosquito Control Board

470 So. 2d 193 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · May 8, 1985

It is to be hoped that in the future job descriptions will clearly reflect the job expectations of employees to avoid misunderstandings. … Blake has requested that this Court establish a time limit for his reinstatement by Mosquito Control and that this court establish sanctions in support thereof should Mosquito Control fail to timely reinstate Mr. Blake.

Landeche v. McSwain

688 So. 2d 1303 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Feb 5, 1997

Quite possibly, the jury found that, notwithstanding the testimony of plaintiffs' experts, plaintiffs had not established the standard of care in this case. … The trial court could not properly refuse to admit the testimony of the rebuttal witness; his ruling on that issue is clearly wrong.

Pamelia Elmer Villa, Individually & O/B/O the Minor Child v. Geico Casualty Insurance Co.

Louisiana Court of Appeal · Feb 15, 2018

After qualifying as an expert optometrist, Dr. Menard explained to the jury that he first started treating Ms. Villa in April 2011. … The tenth day would be August 3, which is clearly ten days before the cancellation date of August 5. Ms.

India Sam, as Curatrix for Jessica Charles v. Genesis Behavioral Hospital, Inc.

Louisiana Court of Appeal · Aug 29, 2018

Kaltenbach explained that Genesis is monitored by the Department of Health and Hospitals (DHH) and serves Medicare patients who qualify for its services. … Absent immunity, justification, or privilege, if the conduct is tortious, then the tortfeasor is personally liable.

State v. Johnson

796 So. 2d 201 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Sep 26, 2001

C.E. art. 702 provides: If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill … Clearly under La. C.Cr.P. art. 793, it was permissible for the jury to conduct a physical examination of the Baggie of cocaine introduced into evidence at trial during their deliberations.

Vernis S. Hinchee v. Soloco, L. L. C.

Louisiana Court of Appeal · Dec 5, 2007

Breach of Contract The plaintiff chiefly contends that the trial court erred in finding that she failed to establish breach of contract. … Recall that the plaintiff’s expert was not qualified to testify as to RECAP standards.

Calvin W. Braxton, Sr. v. Louisiana State Troopers Association

Louisiana Court of Appeal · Jan 5, 2022

A conditional or qualified privilege arises in a broader number of instances. … It is impossible to reduce the scope of a conditional or qualified privilege to any precise formula.

State v. Jacobs

7 La.App. 5 Cir. 887 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · May 12, 2009

During jury selection, state prosecutors used peremptory strikes against ten qualified black venire members. The defendant objected that the strikes were based on race and could not be presumed legitimate. … Stevenson was "clearly erroneous.” Snyder v. Louisiana, 128 S.Ct. at 1207 ("[A] trial court's ruling on the issue of discriminatory intent must be sustained unless it is clearly erroneous.” Hernandez v.

In re Mashburn Marital Trusts

2010 La.App. 1 Cir. 0278 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Dec 22, 2010

The assets of the nine trusts established by the family trust may be commingled and managed as one and the assets of the nine trusts established by the marital trust may be commingled and managed as one. … After the deaths of Jack and Sadie Mash-burn, Helen Mashburn Penton, John Mashburn, Pat Mashburn, Don Mashburn, Michael Mashburn, and Richard Mashburn all qualified for and were recognized by the court as co-trustees of the

Mitchell v. AT & T

660 So. 2d 204 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Aug 28, 1995

In the balance, we cannot conclude that her testimony and the expert evidence clearly and convincingly prove that Ms. Mitchell is unable to work solely as a consequence of substantial pain. R.S. 23:1221(3)(c)(ii). … Mitchell's showing that the epidural qualified under § 1203A, the hearing officer was entitled to find in this regard only that AT & T's refusal to pay was arbitrary, capricious and without probable cause.

State v. Cohen

272 So. 3d 12 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · May 8, 2019

The court then stated the following: The evidence at trial clearly established the fact that an innocent baby died from abuse - severe abuse which took place over a period of several days. … These facts qualify as nothing short of horrific and disturbing and would have supported a conviction on the charged offense of second degree murder.

James Ronald Savoie v. Romel Charles

Louisiana Court of Appeal · Feb 2, 2011

The Trial Court erred in ruling that an attorney is somehow immune from responsibility for damages when that attorney misrepresents or omits facts to a Judge resulting in damages. … The right to amend one’s petition is qualified by the restriction that the objections to the petition be curable.” Id. at 160 (citation omitted). Counsel for Plaintiffs did not appear at the hearing on Mr.

Warren v. Campagna

686 So. 2d 969 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Dec 27, 1996

NEGLIGENCE: Generally, negligence is defined as conduct which falls below the standard established by law for the protection of others against an unreasonable risk of harm. Dobson v. … Their 20% fault allocation, whether based on negligence or article 2317 is not clearly wrong.

State v. R.K.

64 So. 3d 426 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · May 11, 2011

Clearly, |1sa rational trier of fact could have found the victims were more credible than Defendant. Such a finding was not clearly contrary to the evidence. Accordingly, this assignment of error is without merit. … The defense’s line of questioning was clearly trial strategy to show that Ms.

Davis v. Jackson

55 So. 2d 292 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Nov 30, 1951

Marcus’ action at that time clearly reflects that he recognized the line ¡between Lots 102 and 104 as being the west boundary of his property, and-that his frontage of 58 feet was entirely within the limits of said Lot 102 … We do not think the plea- well founded because the qualifying part of the description,^-that is, that the property conveyed is “the same property acquired by John Jamison by purchase from H.

State v. Barlow

0 La.App. 3 Cir. 1657 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Jun 27, 2001

|Jn other words, this court clearly recognized that, once the traffic stop ended, reasonable suspicion was needed to initiate any further investigation. … No. 97-8[2], 1997 WL 165489 (a canine sniff of a person may qualify as a “search”). Thus, the “free air search” by the sergeant’s dog did not impinge upon defendant’s rights.