Case law

Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Louisiana Public Service Commission

242 La. 24 · Supreme Court of Louisiana · May 29, 1961

Next it is urged that the “majority has erred in placing a construction on the Commission’s Order No. 6993 which increased the dollar amount of the reduction clearly beyond the amount found to be justified in the Order itself … If it had been intended that the mentioned sum was controlling and conclusive certainly the quoted qualifying phrase would not have been used.

Wabash Power Equipment Co. v. Lindsey

897 So. 2d 621 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Sep 17, 2004

If the interstate movement has begun, it may be regarded as continuing, so as to maintain the immunity of the property from state taxation, despite temporary interruptions due to the necessities of the journey or for the … The sales and use tax are clearly delineated as complementary, in that the statute requires that there be no duplication of the tax.

Parria v. Cvitanovich

District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Sep 29, 2025

When the district court granted the deputy’s motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, the plaintiff appealed. … established rights.

Beene v. Pardue

79 So. 2d 356 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Mar 22, 1955

To constitute a boundary, it must be clearly understood to be so. … The result clearly has been to overburden the Supreme Court with appeals in matters which should properly be brought before the Courts of Appeal.

Green v. Green (In Re Green)

352 B.R. 771 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Louisiana · Sep 30, 2005

the state court found that the Debtor owed the Plaintiff the sum of $27,401.54 through December 31, 2003, in retirement benefits and further indicated that the parties should partition the retirement benefits through a Qualified … The court finds that the debt clearly arises from the divorce and subsequent separation of property between the parties.

Leaman v. Continental Cas. Co.

2000 La.App. 4 Cir. 0292 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Sep 26, 2001

of all persons causing or contributing to injury, death, or loss shall be determined, regardless of whether the person is a party to the action or a non-party, and regardless of the person's insolvency, ability to pay, immunity … Further, the assessment of 20% comparative fault to Cooper appears to be clearly indicative of the jury's belief that she failed to mitigate her damages. b.

Reinhardt v. CITY OF NEW ORLEANS (NOPD)

2009 La.App. 4 Cir. 1116 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Jan 13, 2010

DISCUSSION In a workers’ compensation case, the appropriate standard of review applied to the WCJ’s factual findings is the manifest error-clearly wrong standard. Dean v. … A claimant seeking TTD must not only establish a work related disability, but also establish by clear and convincing evidence, unaided by any presumption of disability, that she is physically unable to engage in any employment

Opinion Number

Louisiana Attorney General Reports · Jun 23, 1995

To the contrary, the Slatten Memorandum of December 14, 1994, clearly links payment to past performance. … No person shall be denied the right to observe the deliberations of public bodies and examine public documents, except in cases established by law."

Reider v. State Ex Rel. La. Bd. of Trustees

897 So. 2d 893 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Mar 9, 2005

that the finding is clearly wrong (manifestly erroneous). .... ... … Article 702 of the Louisiana Code of Evidence states: If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified

Rapp v. City of New Orleans

750 So. 2d 1130 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Dec 29, 1999

He testified that he is qualified to work in this capacity, but the position does not pay 90% of his pre-injury wages. Mr. … Thus, the Claimants did not adequately establish a foundation for the award of attorney fees.

Civil Serv. Com'n of No v. City of No

826 So. 2d 23 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Nov 1, 2002

The Commission's Rules at issue herein are clearly and unequivocally within the scope of the Commission's constitutional and Chartered authority and serve to achieve the goals and objectives of the merit system of public … Hence, it is appropriate that home rule powers, functions and immunities should be construed fairly, genuinely and reasonably and any claimed exception to them should be given careful scrutiny by the courts.

United States v. Brooks

298 F. Supp. 254 · District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Mar 21, 1969

establishing a right to the exemption. * * * The Board has no affirmative duty to ascertain whether or not the registrant qualifies for the exemption.” 10 With the above principles in mind, it is clear that the Board had … Each registrant will be considered as available for military service until his eligibility for deferment or exemption from military service is clearly established to the satisfaction of the local board.

State v. Nguyen

11 La.App. 5 Cir. 229 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Dec 28, 2011

In the case of sexual offenses, the victim’s testimony alone can be sufficient to establish the elements of a sexual |1fioffense, even if the State does not introduce medical, scientific, or physical evidence to prove the … error. 22 ImOur review of the record discloses no manifest error in the determination to qualify Mr.

State v. Narcisse

512 So. 2d 565 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Jun 26, 1987

Narcisse was called as a witness by the State but invoked her spousal immunity privilege under La.R.S. 15:461(2), refusing to testify against the defendant. … The appellate court held the officer’s testimony “was clearly hearsay evidence and as such, should have been excluded.” In State v.

Ratliff v. Louisiana State

District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Jun 24, 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 to raise arguments which could … Plaintiff does not explicitly argue that the Court made an error by granting immunity, see R. Doc.

Kozlowicz v. State, Department of Public Safety & Corrections

2008 La.App. 1 Cir. 1806 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Mar 27, 2009

A qualified Headquarters staff member has closely reviewed your ARP to determine the validity of your claims, to assess this particular situation, and to issue a fair response. … Because of these rules of construction, the party attacking the act must establish clearly and convincingly that the constitutional aim was to deny the legislature the power to enact the statute. Polk, supra.

State v. Jones

492 So. 2d 1261 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Aug 6, 1986

His status as a convicted felon was clearly proven. The knife was on the defendant at the time of his arrest. He claims the ten-inch butcher knife is not a weapon under the statute. In State v. … A ten-inch butcher knife certainly qualifies as a weapon and its concealment is proscribed by La.R.S. 14:95.1. The defendant also argues the evidence presented was not sufficient to show intent to conceal.

Succession of Jacobs

104 La. 447 · Supreme Court of Louisiana · Nov 15, 1900

Jacobs, the brother, qualified as executor. An inventory was made of the property of the succession, showing the value of the whole estate to be $103,74S. … The alleged declarations are not established.

Black v. New Orleans Ry. & Light Co.

145 La. 180 · Supreme Court of Louisiana · Feb 3, 1919

Plaintiffs, four in number, allege that they “are citizens, inhabitants, taxpayers, and qualified electors of the city of New Orleans”; that the city entered into contracts with several street railway companies, which companies … Liberty implies the absence of arbitrary restraint, not immunity from reasonable regulations and prohibitions imposed in the interest of the community.’ “In Atlantic Coast Line R. R. Co. v. Goldsboro, 232 U.

Montgomery v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.

12 La.App. 3 Cir. 320 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Nov 14, 2012

Where there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder’s choice between them cannot be manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong.... … Mallett was not qualified “to render any scientific opinion as to causation” and that Plaintiffs had not sought to qualify him as an expert witness. It further complains that Mr.