Case law

State v. Taylor

282 So. 2d 491 · Supreme Court of Louisiana · Aug 20, 1973

Defense counsel contends that the trial judge clearly erred in not following the *495 plain provisions of LSA-R.S. 13:3714 and not considering that the statute was an exception to the hearsay rule. … Nonetheless, in the usage of this voir dire examination, it conveys this meaning; If the State establishes the guilt of the defendant "beyond a reasonable doubt to your satisfaction", will your state of mind permit you to

Jarvis v. Lafayette General Hospital

373 So. 2d 1000 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Jul 25, 1979

The minute entry clearly shows that, although the Judge recognized that plaintiffs had failed to submit their claim to a medical review panel, he felt that to dismiss their claim altogether might be unduly prejudicial to … No action against a health care provider covered by this Part, or his insurer, may be commenced in any court of this state before the claimant's proposed complaint has been presented to a medical review panel established

Landry v. Physicians Practice Management

783 So. 2d 619 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Apr 4, 2001

Landry due to her weakened immunity. Mrs. Landry testified at trial that she felt she could not work because of the fatigue, fever, swollen glands and other aches and pains associated with her EBV infection. … Accordingly, we do not find the workers' compensation judge was manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong in awarding penalties and attorney fees. IV.

Opinion Number

Louisiana Attorney General Reports · Apr 2, 2008

In making such a determination the Police Jury has a duty to "exercise reasonable care in establishing a polling place [ . . .] in a building which affords each qualified voter an opportunity to exercise his right of voting … The police jury must also adhere to the time restrictions on changing a polling place established by La.R.S. 18:534 (B), which provides that a polling place cannot be changed during the period commencing when the qualifying

JOHN CHERBONNIER CONST. v. Big Easy Roofing

926 So. 2d 587 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Mar 14, 2006

Similarly, in the present case, all of the extrinsic evidence presented to establish an oral contract came from Cherbonnier himself. … As per our holdings in Madere and Deubler, supra, we find that the trial court clearly erred in qualifying Cherbonnier's exhibits as "corroborating evidence" sufficient to establish an obligation on the part of Silvers.

Hines v. Grand Casinos of Louisiana, LLC

140 F. Supp. 2d 701 · District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Feb 22, 2001

In the case of a party that is immune from suit, joinder is not feasible. See Pit River Home & Agric. Ass’n v. United States, 30 F.3d 1088 , 1100 (9th Cir.1994). … The text of Title VII defines an “employer,” and Congress clearly and unequivocally removed Indian tribes from that definition. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e (2000).

Walker v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

488 So. 2d 397 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · May 14, 1986

A person may also qualify for permanent total disability benefits as an odd lot worker. … Walker qualifies for total permanent disability as an odd lot worker under LSA-R.S. 23:1221(2).

Kevin E. Bias v. Louisiana Physical Therapy Board

Supreme Court of Louisiana · Jun 26, 2019

R.S. 37:2404 is limited to establishing the quorum requirements for “meetings” of the Board. … Clearly, the Board’s authority to impose discipline under La. R.S.37:2420 is part of its rightful concern and falls within the scope of the Board’s business. Mr.

State v. Hill

332 So. 2d 475 · Supreme Court of Louisiana · May 17, 1976

Prior to testimony as an expert, however, a witness must be qualified as such by the trial court. … Under the facts of this case, the trial court clearly did not err in allowing Officer Dunn to testify as an expert witness. There are few areas of scientific expertise subject to absolute certainty.

Anthony v. School Board of Iberia Parish

692 F. Supp. 2d 612 · District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Feb 5, 2010

They further contend that they are each entitled to qualified immunity. All defendants additionally seek dismissal based on prescription. … The undersigned declines to address the defense of qualified immunity because this affirmative defense was not raised by the defendants in their Answer, [rec. doc. 25].

Oliver v. Shreveport Municipal Fire & Police Civil Service Board

227 La. 1067 · Supreme Court of Louisiana · Dec 13, 1954

Court of Appeal in its opinion [ 72 So.2d 524 ] “ * * * the section provides for the constitution of the Board, prescribes its duties, grants authority to adopt and execute its own rules and regula *1074 tions, directs the establishing … The Court of Appeal believed that, since Section 15.1 was the only section in the law relating to the procedure to be followed in conducting hearings and investigations, its provisions were clearly applicable to all investigations

Bernard v. State

127 So. 2d 774 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Mar 6, 1961

Accordingly, it is argued that the exception to the rule relating to the State's immunity from suit, as set out in the above cited cases, is not applicable here. … The evidence establishes that 1.848 acres of plaintiff's land was affected by the excavation and the spoil banks.

Vehrs v. Jefferson Insurance Company

168 So. 2d 873 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Jan 21, 1965

Under these circumstances the jurisprudence is well established that the judgment of the trial court is presumed to have been based upon sufficient evidence and to be correct. Clark v. … In the legal sense, a person's domicile is the place where he has his permanent home or principal establishment, to which place he has, whenever he is absent, the intention of returning.

Miskell v. Ciervo

557 So. 2d 274 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Jan 16, 1990

This is clearly established by defendant's First Supplemental and Amended Answer filed on behalf of Mt. Vernon Insurance Co. … Since the defense of fraud meets the Freeman and Jacobs tests, all defendants enjoy the tenets of qualified privilege. Accordingly we affirm the trial court's ruling maintaining the Exception of No Cause of Action.

Sallean v. Jefferson Parish Medical Society

1 La.App. 5 Cir. 128 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · May 30, 2001

The employer has the burden of proving entitlement to immunity when it seeks to avail itself of tort immunity under La. R.S. 23:1032. Mundy 593 So.2d at 349 . … or during such an activity so that the employee is barely within the outer boundary of the “course of employment” inquiry, a very strong showing by the employee that the risk arose out of the employment is necessary to establish

Overman v. City of East Baton Rouge

132 F. Supp. 3d 753 · District Court, M.D. Louisiana · Sep 22, 2015

Plaintiff essentially argued that her claim is supported by the fact that she is clearly better qualified than White, and that she was asked gender-based questions in the interviews before both committees and the Mayor. … But when a plaintiff is not relying on comparative qualifications alone to establish pretext, the plaintiff is not required to prove that she is clearly better qualified than the employee selected for the position.

Turner v. State

137 So. 2d 456 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Jan 31, 1962

Inasmuch, however, as the exception is, in our opinion, clearly without merit, we may briefly assign reasons therefor. … Nor do the facts established to have existed in this case support defendant's position. The employee of defendant was engaged in work on a roadside park and not upon the surface of a highway.

State v. White

450 So. 2d 648 · Supreme Court of Louisiana · May 14, 1984

Clearly, an expert in drug distribution can give his opinion as to practices about which the average juror would have no competence. … In any event, the improper form was not so prejudicial as to require reversal of the conviction of this clearly guilty party.

In Re Williams

984 So. 2d 789 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Feb 20, 2008

We find this indicative of a legislative intent that compensation be awarded in cases where factual innocence is established clearly and convincingly through such scientific evidence ( e.g., DNA) that exonerates a person, … This is clearly not the intention of the legislature as reflected by the statute.

State v. McQueen

108 La. 410 · Supreme Court of Louisiana · Jul 1, 1902

On the contrary, it clearly establishes that the vision is seriously impaired, and, though the witnesses are unable to state the cause, they testify that the impairment might have resulted from the injury which the defendant … Beyond this, there was no objection made at the time, and no bill reserved, on the ground that the witness, not having qualified as an expert, was undertaking to give expert testimony. Judgment af&rmed.