Case law

Anderson v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Insurance Co.

2010 La.App. 1 Cir. 0036 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Jul 16, 2010

The test to determine whether a person qualifies for UM coverage under a liability insurance policy is to ask whether they would be covered if they were at fault for the accident. … The record establishes that these two requirements are satisfied here. Section 1 of Endorsement 3 states: B.

Graves v. Pelican Downs, Inc.

292 So. 2d 297 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Feb 11, 1974

Graves' testimony clearly indicates he had no intention of holding D'Antoni and Lawrence personally. … His signature is not followed or qualified by the word "Agent", or any other term that would indicate his signing in a representative capacity.

Alonzo v. Chifici

526 So. 2d 237 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Apr 18, 1988

Although the Civil Code clearly contemplates a distinction between sales and construction contracts, it defines the contract of sale in very general terms. … LSA-R.S. 37:2150 et seq., establishes a state licensing requirement for contractors as a protective measure for the general public.

Wirtz v. Local 174, American Fed. of Musicians

272 F. Supp. 294 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Jul 21, 1967

Eng., supra, the act itself clearly indicates a limitation of the part of the Secretary and the court to consider only matters in which a member has exhausted his internal remedies. … At the time of the protested election, the defendant union had a total of 839 members in good standing, twenty-seven of whom *297 were qualified for the office of President or Vice-President.

Lebrun v. Baker Hughes Inc.

192 F. Supp. 3d 696 · District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Jun 14, 2016

It was clearly established, furthermore, that the Bertrand claimants were, arguably at least, “classical blue water” workers engaged in traditional maritime activities. … Our decisions after Bertrand have reaffirmed the essential principle- that to qualify as 'a seaman an employee must establish an attachment to a vessel or to an identifiable fleet of vessels.”)

Winingder v. Balmer

632 So. 2d 408 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Feb 11, 1994

FIRE HAZARD Plaintiff qualified James Mazerat as an expert in fire inspections and safety programs. … Such a condition clearly affects adversely the quality of life not only of Winingder, but also of her family members. Balmer offered no evidence to contradict this testimony.

Gaspard v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.

483 So. 2d 1037 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Dec 11, 1985

One result of these amendments was to make it more difficult for an injured employee to qualify for permanent and total disability benefits. … Plaintiff clearly failed to carry her burden of proof, and the trial court should not have awarded her benefits for total and permanent disability.

Dejoie v. Guidry

2010 La.App. 4 Cir. 1542 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Jul 13, 2011

Second, because we li>find that the trial judge was not clearly wrong in finding that Mr. … We review that finding under the well-known clearly wrong standard. State, Dept. of Social Services ex rel. D.F. v.

Eastin v. Entergy Corp.

9 La.App. 5 Cir. 293 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Jul 27, 2010

If, however, the older employee shows that he was terminated in favor of younger, clearly less qualified individuals, a genuine, material fact issue exists. Texas Instruments, 100 F.3d at 1181 . … In a reduction in force case, a prima facie case is established by evidence that (1) that he is within the protected age group; (2) that he has been adversely affected by the employer’s decision; (3) that he was qualified

Nelson v. Ellis

District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Sep 30, 2021

Ctr. 307 F.3d 318, 326 n.1 (5th Cir. 2002) (finding that the Fifth Circuit has “long recognized that Congress has clearly abrogated the states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity in enacting Title VII”). … His complaint very clearly states that he is seeking equitable relief under § 1983.

Hallaron v. Jacob's Engineering Group, Inc.

4 La.App. 5 Cir. 876 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Jan 25, 2005

DISCUSSION Decisions of the workers' compensation court are subject to the manifest error, or clearly wrong, standard of review on appeal. … The worker's burden of proof in establishing *131 the occurrence of a job-related accident is preponderance of the evidence. Braxton v.

Veal v. M & M Properties, Ltd.

525 So. 2d 188 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Mar 2, 1988

This is especially true in light of the fact that it was established at trial that the Sears service technician only changed the “open switch. … As such, we conclude that the lower court was manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong in its assignment of 80% fault to defendants.

Simon v. American Crescent Elevator Co.

767 So. 2d 64 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Apr 26, 2000

The trial court reapportioned Schindler's fault to Ridge Tool and American Crescent because Schindler was statutorily *68 immune from suit under the Louisiana Workers' Compensation. … finding is clearly wrong (manifestly erroneous).

Vaughn v. BFI WASTE SYSTEMS OF N. AMERICA, INC.

793 So. 2d 410 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Jul 25, 2001

He further alleged that there was no written agreement between Quixx and Relator; thus, Relator was not entitled to immunity from suit in tort under LSA-R.S. 23:1061. … Thereafter, if the adverse party fails to produce factual support sufficient to establish that he will be able to satisfy his evidentiary burden of proof at trial, there is no genuine issue of material fact. *413 Once the

Salim v. Louisiana State Board of Education

289 So. 2d 554 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Apr 19, 1974

We think the actions of the defendant Board show clearly that the Board intended to accept and to ratify the contract which had been entered into by plaintiff and the officers of the State Board of Education. … Since the sequestration did not interfere with defendants' use or possession of the leased premises, it is unnecessary for us to consider the question of whether defendants' property was immune from seizure.

Klein

District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Nov 21, 2025

Thus, “[a] motion to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59(e) must clearly establish either a manifest error of law or fact or must present newly discovered evidence and cannot be used tIon r raei sLei faer gPuamrtnenertss … immunity.

Goins v. Galion Mfg. Co.

626 So. 2d 1200 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Oct 20, 1993

The manufacturer's additional duty to "anticipate alteration and modification of the product resulting from wear and tear" is qualified by reasonableness and foreseeability. … ANALYSIS Carefully reviewing the record in its entirety, we must conclude the jury's assessment of fault against the manufacturer based on the facts established in this case was "clearly wrong."

Moossy v. Huckabay Hospital, Inc.

283 So. 2d 699 · Supreme Court of Louisiana · Sep 24, 1973

Huckabay's letters establish that he was aware of the additional costs which would be incurred by the changes; Moossy's correspondence establishes that he communicated the increasing project cost as the plans were changed … Huckabay's testimony is very qualified when he speaks of a $350,000 fixed limit.

Hubbard v. MARILYN'S MANHATTAN GROOMING

784 So. 2d 752 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Apr 4, 2001

that the finding is clearly wrong. … As noted above, this method of calculating Hubbard's production was clearly wrong.

State v. Hankerson

604 So. 2d 1323 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · May 22, 1992

statements elicited by the state during plea negotiations which took place in Rapides Parish, where the defendant was charged in both Avoyelles Parish and Rapides Parish and he apparently believed that he was being offered immunity … The jury clearly elected not to believe that testimony.