Case law

Gauthier v. O'BRIEN

606 So. 2d 915 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Dec 21, 1992

At issue is the effect of the 1987 amendment to LSA-C.C. art. 2324, which establishes the scope of solidary liability in tort cases. … Clearly, this covers all immune persons, including employers who are immune by statute.

Rogers v. State ex rel. Department of Public Safety & Corrections

7 La.App. 3 Cir. 1060 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Jan 30, 2008

In their sole assignment of error, Defendants assert that the trial court erred in denying their peremptory exception of no right of action where there was no evidence in the record establishing that plain *922 tiffs possessed … JjDISCUSSION An appellate court may not set aside a trial court’s finding of fact in the absence of manifest error or unless it is clearly wrong. Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840 (La.1989).

Johnson v. Smith

District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Dec 6, 2024

A “clearly established” legal principle for qualified-immunity purposes is established only in certain circumstances: “(1) where it is provided by controlling authority; (2) where it is provided by a robust consensus of … Fifth-Circuit caselaw also makes clear that, when qualified immunity applies to the alleged predicate constitutional violation because it is not a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, qualified immunity

City of Monroe v. Louisiana Public Service Commission

233 La. 478 · Supreme Court of Louisiana · Jun 10, 1957

This authority is qualified by the words “except as herein otherwise provided.” … It is argued by the City of Monroe that Section 7 is a grant of immunity from legislative change to the municipalities.

Revolta v. Regional Transit Authority

607 So. 2d 963 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Oct 29, 1992

The statute establishing the Regional Transit Authority, LSA-R.S. 48:1654, states in pertinent part; A. … In 1960 the legislature waived governmental tort immunity and liability. Mr.

Miller v. Acadian Ambulance Serv., Inc.

248 So. 3d 469 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · May 23, 2018

Thus, "[t] he time limitation established by La. … By enacting La.R.S. 40:1133.13, "the Legislature granted EMTs a qualified immunity *478 for liability from ordinary negligence claims; this immunity does not cover intentional or grossly negligent acts or omissions."

Everett v. Rubicon, Inc.

938 So. 2d 1032 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Jun 14, 2006

(Rubicon), finding that Rubicon was Everett's statutory employer and immune from tort liability. We affirm. … that the 1997 amendments to LSA-R.S. 23:1061 mandated a more liberal interpretation of the statutory employer relationship, the court's inquiry shifted to whether or not construction of a new building or facility would qualify

Ruffin v. Poland Enterprises, LLC

946 So. 2d 695 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Dec 13, 2006

The benefit to the employer is that once coverage is established, the employer enjoys immunity from most tort liability, including claims based on negligence. … Once coverage under the Act is established, an employer is guaranteed immunity from tort litigation, but the employee is not guaranteed relief. The issue of causation then determines whether relief is actually granted.

State v. Tassin

11 La.App. 5 Cir. 1144 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Dec 19, 2013

Singer acknowledged the lack of evidence to establish that defendant bled while in contact with Mr. Stagner. … exercise of its immunity power.

State v. Gamberella

633 So. 2d 595 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Dec 29, 1993

HIV is the virus responsible for causing acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS). … To establish defendant's guilt, the state was required to prove that defendant intentionally exposed the victim to the acquired immune deficiency syndrome virus through sexual contact without the victim's knowing and lawful

St. Mary Anesthesia v. Hosp. Serv. Dist.

836 So. 2d 379 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Dec 20, 2002

This general right was expressly qualified, however, by an exclusionary proviso authorizing exceptions "in cases established by law." … The use of the word "established" in the proviso at issue, instead of "provided," does not warrant a different interpretation. [11] Thus, the legislature is clearly empowered to fashion exceptions to the general right of

Aranyosi v. Delchamps, Inc.

98 La.App. 1 Cir. 1325 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Jun 25, 1999

Nevertheless, even if all the elements of defamation were present, a qualified privilege exists in favor of defendants. … by statute or otherwise, including but not limited to immunity as provided in R.S. 23:1032, or that the other person's identity is not known or reasonably ascertainable.

Holder v. Louisiana Parks Service, Inc.

493 So. 2d 275 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Aug 21, 1986

FACTS The affidavits and interrogatories and their answers establish the following facts to be considered in determining the merits of the motion for summary judgment. … There remains a material issue as to whether the park, its location and surrounding developments qualifies it for the immunity provided for by the statutes.

JMCB, LLC v. Bd. of Commerce & Indus.

293 F. Supp. 3d 580 · District Court, M.D. Louisiana · Dec 4, 2017

The constitutional provision specifically defines "manufacturing establishment" and "addition to a manufacturing establishment," and LDED regulations govern the administration of the exemption. (Doc. 1-2 at 2-3.) … Thus, Defendants have established each requirement for jurisdiction under CAFA.

Musmeci v. American Automobile Insurance Company

146 So. 2d 496 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Oct 1, 1962

City of Shreveport is clearly distinguishable from this case. … It is well established in our law that the defense of immunity of governmental agencies and charitable institutions for torts of their agents and servants is a defense which is personal to the institution or sovereign itself

Champagne v. American Alternative Insurance Corp.

112 So. 3d 179 · Supreme Court of Louisiana · Mar 19, 2013

After reviewing the record and the law, we find the defendants have failed to establish that the Workers’ Compensation Law grants immunity to fellow volunteer members of a volunteer fire company from suits in tort. … After reviewing the record and the law, we find the defendants have failed to establish as a matter of law that the Workers’ Compensation Act grants immunity to a volunteer member of a volunteer fire company from suit in

Clement v. Reeves

975 So. 2d 170 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Jan 30, 2008

Clearly, LCG was provided with immunity from negligence in its efforts to remedy the effects of Hurricane Lili during the state of emergency absent a showing of willful misconduct. Castille v. … We again recognize that "Clearly, LCG was provided with immunity from negligence in its efforts to remedy the effects of Hurricane Lili during the state of emergency absent a showing of willful misconduct. Castille v.

Smith v. Bd. of Commissioners of the La. Stadium

372 F. Supp. 3d 431 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Mar 7, 2019

." 138 The ADA clearly states Congress's intent to abrogate state sovereign immunity. 139 In United States v. … Georgia , the Supreme Court established a three-part test to determine whether, in a particular case, Title II's abrogation of state sovereign immunity pursuant to Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment is valid. 140 To make

Gardner v. ZULU SOCIAL AID & PLEASURE CLUB

98 La.App. 4 Cir. 1040 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Feb 10, 1999

This certainly was not the intent of the legislature, which clearly intended this statute to grant tort immunity. … Thus, in sum, I strongly believe that plaintiffs' contract claim does not fall within the gamut of the immunity statute, which clearly should be limited to tort immunity. Mr.

Ryland v. Shapiro

586 F. Supp. 1495 · District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Aug 15, 1984

The defendants are entitled to qualified immunity in regard to their investigative function, see Marrero, 625 F.2d at 510-11 , and the same conclusion as to the availability of the immunity applies here. … There is absolutely no intimation in this record that the *1505 defendants in any way abused their privilege to assert qualified immunity from suit.