Case law

Bergeron v. Illinois Cent. Gulf R. Co.

402 So. 2d 184 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Jun 29, 1981

The evidence clearly establishes there was no "Cross Buck" sign at this particular crossing although the statute requires one. La.R.S. 45:562. In regards to the horn or bell signal, Mr. … established, and that the interests of justice in Louisiana would not be served if a qualified judge agreed to recuse himself at the slightest suggestion of any conceivable bias, especially when such suggestion is not made

Derrick Shepherd v. Thomas Schedler, in His Official Capacity as the Secretary of State for the State of Louisiana, & James "Buddy" Caldwell in His Official Capacity as Attorney General for the State of Louisiana, & Paul D. Connick, Jr., in His Official Capacity as District Attorney for the 24th Judicial District, Parish of Jefferson, State of Louisiana

Supreme Court of Louisiana · Jan 27, 2016

That is, jurisdiction, once established, may abate if the case is moot. … One of the well-established exceptions to the mootness doctrine was discussed in depth by this court in State v. Rochon, 11-0009 (La. 10/25/11), 75 So.3d 876.

State v. Shaffer

260 La. 605 · Supreme Court of Louisiana · Nov 23, 1971

In their consideration of a qualified verdict, jurors are free of standards and criteria. Once guilt has been established, they have full discretion as to whether or not to dispense with capital punishment. … However, hearsay is clearly admissible if it *629 comes within the broad res gestae exception applied in Louisiana. R.S. 15:447; see State v.

Town of Slidell v. Temple

155 So. 2d 681 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Jun 3, 1963

The essence of this complaint is that Mayor Fritchie is not a civil engineer and is not qualified to give expert or opinion evidence concerning the alleged cause of the failure. … The evidence in the case at bar clearly preponderates in favor of the conclusion the contractor herein performed all work in strict accordance and compliance with the contract plans and specifications.

Anthony

District Court, M.D. Louisiana · Sep 14, 2026

In exchange for the responsibility placed on statutory employers, the statute affords them immunity from tort liability to their statutory employees.”31 “Thus, a principal is immune from tort liability if the contract … R., 34 F.4th at 441 (“[T]he plaintiff bears the burden of showing a qualifying intentional act, and that burden is steep.”).

Liles v. Riblet Products of Louisiana, Inc.

363 F. Supp. 358 · District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Sep 7, 1973

As the quid pro quo for subjecting the principal to liability for workmen’s compensation to his subcontractor’s employees, § 1032 of the Act grants the employer immunity from tort liability. … Consequently, the crucial issue we must determine is whether the escort service provided here was a part of Riblet’s business within the meaning of the statute, so as to establish workmen’s compensation benefits as the exclusive

Elwakin v. Target Media Partners Operating Co. LLC.

901 F. Supp. 2d 730 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Oct 9, 2012

Because the Court has already established that there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Elwakil was terminated or resigned, the evidence clearly suffices to establish Elwakil’s prima facie case of retaliation … There is nothing in this statement that establishes this contention.

Cambre v. Tassin Amphibious Equipment Corp.

464 So. 2d 878 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Feb 12, 1985

Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C.A. 901 et seq.; and as a properly qualified claimant under The Louisiana Worker's Compensation Law, LSA-R.S. 23:1021 et seq. … However, there is some evidence to support this conclusion so that we are not convinced that the jury was clearly wrong.

Patterson v. WEBER MARINE & FIREMAN'S FUND

93 La.App. 1 Cir. 0729 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Apr 8, 1994

The court reasoned that although there is an exclusivity provision in the Longshoreman and Harbor Workers Compensation Act, the language of the statute clearly indicates that the term "employee" under the statute does not … The employer need not own the vessel, nor fleet of vessels in order for the employee to qualify as a "seaman" under the Jones Act. Coats v. Penrod Drilling Corp. 5 F.3d 877 (5th Cir.1993).

Handy v. City of Kenner

12 La.App. 5 Cir. 135 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Jun 28, 2012

Further, a trial court’s findings of fact will not be disturbed unless the record establishes that a factual, reasonable basis does not exist and the finding is clearly wrong or manifestly erroneous. Syrie v. … At trial, plaintiff presented the testimony of Ladd Ehlinger, who was qualified as an expert in architecture. Mr.

State v. Catanese

368 So. 2d 975 · Supreme Court of Louisiana · Mar 5, 1979

Clearly, the criteria used for determining the admissibility of scientific evidence should not require the instant and unquestionable demonstration required for the judicial notice of scientific facts. [9] Other types of … Obviously, this for analysis by any experts they may wish, who may testify if they can be qualified under Point I.

Errol G. Williams, Assessor, Parish of Orleans v. Opportunity Homes Limited Partnership and Louisiana Tax Commission

240 So. 3d 161 · Supreme Court of Louisiana · Mar 13, 2018

Pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 42 , a housing project may qualify for LIHTC status, if, in addition to meeting other requirements, a certain minimum percentage "of the residential units in such project are both rent-restricted and … Further, tax credits may be "recaptured" on an LIHTC property if the building is disposed of, unless "it is reasonably expected that such building will continue to be operated as a qualified low-income building for the remaining

First National Bank of Commerce v. de la Tour Contractors, Inc.

570 So. 2d 239 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Nov 15, 1990

The first issue on appeal is whether FNBC qualifies as a third person under the terms of the statute. … The language of R.S. 9:2722 clearly indicates that the Legislature did intend to include purchasers, mortgagees, grantees, vendees and lessees as third persons.

Sider v. Robin Temporary Service

515 So. 2d 1123 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Nov 9, 1987

Although Sider was paid by Robin, he was clearly directed and supervised by A & M in its cleaning operations. It was A & M who supplied the cleaning equipment. … Counsel then asserts that since Sider is not Valley's "borrowed employee" it is not immune from a tort suit.

Jordan v. Willis-Knighton Medical Center

911 So. 2d 351 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Sep 21, 2005

In approving a settlement or determining the amount, if any, to be paid from the patient's compensation fund, the court shall consider the liability of the health care provider as admitted and established where the insurer … Accordingly, he states that for the PCF to raise third party fault against one of its own members, without statutory authority, would clearly violate this duty of good faith and be contrary to public policy.

Green v. Buell

16 La.App. 4 Cir. 0873 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Apr 5, 2017

Clearly, a layperson could not ascertain the standard of care in such a procedure without the guidance of an expert. … The Hondroulis^Court held that to establish that first step of proving materiality “some expert testimony is necessary to establish this aspect of materiality because only a physician or other qualified expert is capable

Delaney v. Whitney Nat. Bank

96 La.App. 4 Cir. 2144 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Dec 15, 1997

The retirement plans referred to in the agreement were arrangements sponsored and administered by Whitney; the two pertinent to this litigation are the qualified retirement plan (Retirement Plan) and a non-qualified retirement … We believe the trial court properly admitted the evidence to establish Whitney's breach of the agreement.

State v. Sykes

40 La. Ann. 66 · Supreme Court of Louisiana · Feb 15, 1888

But such an incident did not and could not affect or destroy the nature of the issues which were clearly made out by the pleadings between the parties. … If these witnesses are to be believed no one would dispute that the case of intervenors is clearly established. Their testimony is fiercely assailed by counsel for the State.

Edwards v. Police Jury

39 La. Ann. 855 · Supreme Court of Louisiana · Jul 15, 1887

In this case the Legislature has clearly refused to give its consent to such removal, except in compliance with the condition expressed in the proviso. … The statement made by the counsel for the rembvalists establishes this beyond a doubt, for he tells us that the bill, as originally passed by the House, contained no such proviso ; that the Senate refused to pass it without

Com. Emp. v. Morphy, Makofsky & Masson, Inc.

436 So. 2d 719 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Aug 3, 1983

However, the trial court declared: "This Court finds that there were actions by the plaintiff which would lead to the establishment of a quasi-contract. These include: 1.) Discussions by plaintiff and Ms. … It was clearly shown that Nelson neither set up an interview for Rifai with Morphy nor directed Rifai to apply.