Case law

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.

Parish Council of Parish of East Baton Rouge v. Louisiana Highway & Heavy Branch of Associated General Contractors, Inc.

131 So. 2d 272 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · May 22, 1961

life, liberty or property, except by due process of law” and the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which provides: “no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities … That case, however, is clearly distinguishable *298 from the one at bar. Our decision therein was based solely on the provisions of Sect. 4 of Act. 22 of the Charter of St.

Chaisson v. Cajun Bag & Supply Co.

708 So. 2d 375 · Supreme Court of Louisiana · Mar 4, 1998

In the instant case, we are first called upon to decide whether hearsay evidence can qualify as competent evidence. … However, even assuming that Chaisson had met her initial burden of proving entitlement to SEBs (which we do not concede), there is sufficient competent evidence in the record to establish that the employer met its burden

James D. Madden and Lyda Roberts Madden v. Mary Elizabeth Chumley, In Her Capacity as of the Succession of Johnye Mae Madden

Louisiana Court of Appeal · Sep 25, 2019

Smith was qualified as an expert in “land, titles, title examination, opinions, and matters pertaining thereto” during the trial on the merits. … Smith’s testimony, Beth’s attorney questioned him regarding the subject matter for which he was retained and qualified to offer an expert opinion. While qualifying Mr.

Royer v. State, Department of Transportation & Development

16 La.App. 3 Cir. 534 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Jan 11, 2017

that the finding is clearly wrong (manifestly erroneous). … Clearly, DOTD should be subject to the policy goal of deterring negligent behavior.

Dunnington v. Magee

152 So. 2d 391 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Mar 29, 1963

Hollister to re-survey the property and establish the corners. … He stated there were two or three sets of lines made by qualified surveyors and foresters who were not qualified surveyors. The basis of Freshwater’s knowledge of the lines was an old Hollister survey made for Gaylord.

Saer v. New Orleans Regional Physician Hospital Organization

14 La.App. 5 Cir. 856 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Mar 25, 2015

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Defendant/appellee, New Orleans Regional Physician Hospital Organization, Inc. d/b/a Peoples Health Network 1 (“Peo- ■ pies Health”), provides health plans to those who qualify for Medicare benefits … Clearly, Dr. Saer’s application for injunc-tive relief does not seek to preserve the status quo. At the time Dr.

Meyers v. Acme Homestead Ass'n

18 La. App. 697 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Dec 14, 1931

Thus we find that the attempt by plaintiff to qualify his acceptance of the checks was ineffective, and that the respective rights of the parties remained just as they wer.e, regardless of the insertion by Meyers of the words … It seems, then, that no matter how well established and no matter how irrevocably admitted the smaller sum may be, if, growing out of the same or a clearly related transaction, there is a real dispute as to whether a larger

State v. Tuggle

504 So. 2d 1016 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Mar 4, 1987

The above testimony clearly indicates that the defendant did not have Mrs. Doe's consent to enter the home. Although Mrs. … The defendant has the burden of establishing the defense of insanity at the time of the offense by a preponderance of the evidence. LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 652.

Harper v. Home Indemnity Company

140 So. 2d 653 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Apr 4, 1962

To the contrary, the proof establishes no extension agreement was made. The record is completely barren of any agreement to extend the term of the contract. … In accordance with this principle, the excess payment by plaintiff for the work contracted clearly constitutes an item of damages within the contemplation of the parties at the time the contract was entered into.

Wartelle v. Women's and Children's Hosp., Inc.

704 So. 2d 778 · Supreme Court of Louisiana · Dec 15, 1997

Clearly, the action cannot fit within the first exception in the article because the bystander action belongs to the parents; it is not pursued for the interests of the fetus but for the interests of the bystanders. … Pierre, 402 So.2d 633 (La.1981)(on reh'g), it would be arbitrary and illogical to reward the tortfeasor with immunity from liability because the tortfeasor injured a viable fetus seriously enough to cause its death just before

Berard v. St. Martin Parish Government

13 La.App. 3 Cir. 114 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Jun 5, 2013

The record clearly established that St. Martin Parish had a lawful “maintenance” servitude on the drainage channel in question. … Again, this finding is legally and factually incorrect as it was clearly established at trial that St.

State v. Cuccia

933 So. 2d 134 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Mar 15, 2006

Noel Lozes, an emergency room physician at Mercy Hospital, was qualified by stipulation as an expert in emergency medicine. Dr. … Thus, clearly the justifiable homicide provision, La. R.S. 14:20, does not apply. [2] There is no merit to this assignment of error.

State v. Board of Adm'rs of Tulane Education Fund

125 La. 432 · Supreme Court of Louisiana · Jan 17, 1910

“Further answering, respondent avers that it has discharged all of its duties in the premises with fidelity and without favor to any adverse interest, and that it has been advised by those who, in its opinion, are qualified … transferred, in any contingency; provided further, that the property, so transferred, may not be sold or disposed of except under legislative sanction; provided further that if the ‘Tulane University of Louisiana’ as herein established

Saffel v. Bamburg

540 So. 2d 988 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Feb 22, 1989

Bamburg, who had clearly been drinking, was operating a 1974 Chevrolet Nova owned by Rodney Messick in a northerly direction, and struck the Coleman vehicle head-on after crossing the center line. Mrs. Coleman and Mrs. … However, we are aware of no requirement that the owner of a covered vehicle must be afforded UM coverage regardless of whether or not such owner qualifies as an "insured" under the appropriate policy language.

State v. Jackson

820 So. 2d 1147 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · May 29, 2002

FACTS: At the suppression hearing Sergeant Bruce Harrison of the Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office was qualified as an expert in narcotics. … The trial court's decision to deny a Motion to Suppress is afforded great weight and will not be set aside unless the preponderance of the evidence clearly favors suppression. State v.

Thibodeaux v. Burton

538 So. 2d 1001 · Supreme Court of Louisiana · Jan 30, 1989

In this case the evidence to establish *1005 the use of the truck consisted of the testimony of the arresting officer. … Succession of Robinson, 186 La. 389, 394 , 172 So. 429, 430 (1937), but this discretion is not immune from appellate review. As we stated in Hardy v.

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.

Gutierrez v. Moezzi

957 So. 2d 842 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Apr 11, 2007

that the finding is clearly wrong (manifestly erroneous). … Gutierrez clearly testified that when she worked at the textile store she worked for Birjand, the corporation.

Crescent Property Partners, LLC v. American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Co.

158 So. 3d 798 · Supreme Court of Louisiana · Jan 28, 2015

However, it is a procedural law, establishing a period after which a plaintiff may no longer assert a claim. … Indeed, the record clearly establishes the parties were allowed to brief the peremption issue thoroughly and to argue their positions before the panel.