Case law

Graham v. ST. CHARLES GENERAL HOSP.

590 So. 2d 818 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Nov 26, 1991

It is well established that statutes of limitation are remedial in nature and as such are generally accorded retroactive application, unless such application would disturb a party's preexisting or vested right. Lott v. … As the amendment in question lengthens the applicable prescriptive period, there is clearly no disturbance of vested rights.

State v. Shipp

712 So. 2d 230 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Apr 8, 1998

When the direct evidence is thus viewed, the facts established by the direct evidence and inferred from the circumstances established by that evidence must be sufficient for a rational trier of fact to conclude beyond a reasonable … or immunity by playing upon the victim's hopes of release.

Palacios v. LOUISIANA AND DELTA RAILROAD, INC.

775 So. 2d 698 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Dec 29, 2000

Plaintiff has not proven to this Court that DOTD is essentially immune. … Plaintiff makes the argument that DOTD's interpretation of 23 U.S.C. § 409 establishes immunity to anyone and everyone for any wrongdoing without any showing of a compelling state interest.

Hughes Realty Company v. Pfister

245 So. 2d 757 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Mar 8, 1971

Co., [5] the court allowed a reconventional demand against an assignor where it was clearly established that the assignment to the plaintiff-assignee was confected for the sole purpose of avoiding the defendant's counterclaim … Atlas Cordage Co., [6] the Supreme Court allowed a reconventional demand against a nonresident not a party to the suit where it was clearly established that the plaintiff who sued in his individual name sued in reality only

State v. U-Drive It Car Co.

79 So. 2d 590 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Mar 28, 1955

personal property, * * An additional objection interposed by the defendant is the fact that it collects and remits to the State the tax imposed by LSA-R.S.' 47:302(B), however, an analysis of the statute fails to disclose any immunity … Vial, 1939, 193 La. 1 , 190 So. 313, 315 , the court was of the opinion: — ■ “There is no principle of interpretation more firmly and uniformly established by the jurisprudence of this and the other States than the unbroken

Parker v. Town of Woodworth

14 La.App. 3 Cir. 943 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Mar 4, 2015

And the inquiry is not as forgiving as the one employed in the distinct context of deciding whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity for a constitutional or statutory violation. … The basis of the Town of Woodworth’s liability as Godwin’s employer is clearly established in the record.

Rhodes v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation & Development

94 La.App. 1 Cir. 1758 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · May 5, 1995

against sovereign immunity in tort and contract suits.” … sovereign immunity.

City of Natchitoches v. State

221 So. 2d 534 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Apr 8, 1969

The cited constitutional provision only requires waiver of immunity where the liability sought to be enforced is historically immune from suit without legislative consent under the judicially-created doctrines recognizing … Every consideration of public need and public policy upon which the legislation could rationally have been based should be weighed by the court, and the statute should be upheld as being valid and enforceable unless it clearly

Worley v. Thirdkill

506 So. 2d 1288 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · May 6, 1987

The defendant also complains *1290 that under LSA-R.S. 9:397, multiple experts are required for an admissible blood test to establish paternity. … NOTES [1] That statute had previously provided: The tests shall be made by experts qualified as examiners of blood types who shall be appointed by the court.

Willis v. EAN Holdings

2015 La.App. 1 Cir. 1539 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Apr 12, 2017

Clearly, RIS is a private corporation and was in no way acting under the color of state law. Thus, Ms. Willis could not meet her burden of proving her Fourteenth Amendment due process claims or § 1983 claims. … Under the well-established framework set out by the Supreme Court, the plaintiff has the initial burden of proving, by a preponderance Rof the evidence, a prima facie case of discrimination. Patterson v.

Fox v. Shaw Group

106 So. 3d 200 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Nov 28, 2012

Fox and thus immune from any tort claim brought by him. On September 19, 2011, a hearing on the motion was held and the matter taken under advisement. … Thus, the “Consent to Assignment” signed by the parties clearly contemplates Foster Wheeler as a subcontractor of Shaw.

Garvin v. Perret

670 So. 2d 1250 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Feb 14, 1996

However, the immunity does not extend to intentional torts or *1253 the employee not in the course and scope of his employment. … He notes that Perret and Dodgen had control over plaintiff, had the right to fire plaintiff, furnished the tools and place to work and established the work to be performed.

State ex rel. of L.W.

9 La.App. 3 Cir. 243 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Jun 3, 2009

Adkins, Ph.D., as an expert qualified to offer an opinion in this case? 2. … The first element of Article 1015(5) is clearly established based on facts in the record revealing that the children were in State custody for more than one year when the termination trial was held and the judgment granting

Wingfield v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation & Development

716 So. 2d 164 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Jun 29, 1998

Clearly, this issue is solely a question of law, not fact, which is appropriate for summary judgment. … For the reasons expressed below in the discussion of whether the third party plaintiff stated a cause of faction, we conclude the grant of summary judgment was correct, because revised LSA-C.C. art. 2323 does not establish

Marilee Cash, Nancy Dickie v. Office of Group Benefits, Office of the Governor

Louisiana Court of Appeal · Dec 19, 2025

appears clearly on the face of the pleadings. … as " qualified immunity," the statute upon which they rely, La.

State v. Ramsey

457 So. 2d 211 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Sep 26, 1984

Additionally, the subject matter of the letter clearly pertains to Donald Washington’s testimony. … The evidence establishes the genuineness and authenticity of the letter as one from Donald Washington to the defendant’s attorney.

Carey v. Rao

2001 La.App. 4 Cir. 1235 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Sep 11, 2002

are clearly wrong or manifestly erroneous. … Clearly, the Careys established a breach of the standard of care owed to Joseph. Thus, the district court did not err in denying the Motion for Directed Verdict nor was the jury clearly erroneous in their findings.

State Board of Ethics v. Arnold

184 So. 3d 60 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Sep 28, 2015

After reviewing the entire record, the appellate court may reverse the trier of fact’s findings if there is no reasonable factual basis for such findings, and the -.record establishes that the trier of fact was clearly- wrong … In both cases, the Board put on evidence sufficient to establish a prima facie case that the candidates actually owed the late fees when they qualified.

Karen Carter Peterson v. Allen Helwick Borne, Jr., Kyle Ardoin, in His Official Capacity as the Secretary of State, and C. Arthur Morrell, in His Official Capacity as the Chief Election Officer for Orleans Parish

Louisiana Court of Appeal · Aug 22, 2019

“Where there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder’s choice between them cannot be manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong.” … The use of the word “shall” establishes a mandatory duty. La. R.S. 1:3; Hamilton v. Royal Int'l Petroleum Corp., 2005-0846, p. 11 (La. 2/22/06), 934 So.2d 25, 33.

ONE RIVER PLACE CONDO. ASS'N INC. v. Mitchell

609 So. 2d 942 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Nov 18, 1992

The Court stated as follows: an exemption is an exceptional privilege and it must be clearly and unequivocally and affirmatively established, for it is an elementary rule of construction in our jurisprudence that exemptions … Clearly, the dominant estate owner may not alienate the land on which the servitude is granted nor may he collect the fruits of the ground on which the servitude is granted.