Case law

George v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety & Corrections

272 F. Supp. 3d 855 · District Court, M.D. Louisiana · Sep 29, 2017

established federal law. … Nichols, 274 F.3d 829, 840 (4th Cir. 2001) (“Youngberg clearly establishes that a hospital’s obligation to protect the safety of its patients is measured by the professional judgment standard, and there is no reason to think

Keating v. Van Deventer

2014 La.App. 1 Cir. 0157 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Sep 19, 2014

To obtain the benefit of the limitation of liability under the Act, a healthcare provider must become qualified by fulfilling the requirements of La. … R.S. 40:1299.47(A)(2)(c) clearly provides that: |12An attorney chairman for the medical review panel shall be appointed within one year from the date the request for review of the claim was filed.

Stanley R. Palowsky, III Versus Allyson Campbell

Louisiana Court of Appeal · Aug 26, 2021

The defendant judges also filed, among other things, an exception of no cause of action, also arguing that judicial immunity applied to render them immune from suit, as well as a similar motion to strike. … As noted above, the scope of this provision of the Order is clearly allowed under La. C.C.P. art. 1426(A)(5).

State v. Jones

46 So. 3d 756 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Aug 11, 2010

The trial court’s admission of an allegedly gruesome photograph will be overturned on appeal only if the prejudicial effect clearly outweighs the probative value. … Though the photographs are not pleasant, they hardly seem to qualify as gruesome. Moreover, the defense merely alleges that the photographs are prejudicial.

Clement v. Naquin

152 So. 2d 281 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Mar 29, 1963

Article 5121, and contending under these Articles there is no restriction on the right of a financially qualified person to become surety on a judicial bond. … The failure of the Legislature to enact a law prohibiting attorneys from signing bonds in all civil cases clearly shows that they did not intend to prevent attorneys from signing bonds except in certain special cases.

Wooley v. Lucksinger

961 So. 2d 1228 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · May 4, 2007

In brief, Health Net asserts the following: Health Net's Third Party Claim alleged numerous facts which establish that LDIs [DOI] actions represented to Health Net that it was permissible to sell the Louisiana HMO to AmCareCo … 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.

United States ex rel. Manuel v. Livingston Management, Inc.

932 F. Supp. 2d 674 · District Court, M.D. Louisiana · May 10, 2012

further contends that plaintiffs have failed to allege that any payments from the government were conditioned upon certification of compliance with the income requirements, which is a prerequisite in the Fifth Circuit to establish … The contents are clearly discussed in the paragraph above, and the employees alleged to have submitted the false claims are clearly identified.

In re Dean

247 So. 3d 746 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Mar 29, 2018

The evidence at trial established that Nettie was extremely ill in the final weeks of her life. … The evidence does not establish any mismanagement of the estate by Cherry.

Wakefield v. Reliance Nat. Indemn. Co.

845 So. 2d 1238 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Apr 29, 2003

Walkowski's deposition testimony and her trial testimony established that the accident occurred on a Saturday. Walkowski had been Operations Manager at McDonough for 21 years. … The trial court found, however, that Walkowski was clearly on an employment-related mission at the time the accident occurred.

State v. MacK

243 La. 369 · Supreme Court of Louisiana · Jun 29, 1962

Those that were better qualified to serve on the Grand Jury of those 300 that we had there. And I don’t remember—I think we had two negroes from Jeanerette and one from Loreauville and I think, one from New Iberia. “Q. … The eminent trial judge, who saw and heard the witnesses on this factual issue, states in his per curiam: “The evidence shows very clearly that there was no discrimination in drawing and selecting petit and grand juries.”

State Ex Rel. Ieyoub v. Bordens, Inc.

684 So. 2d 1024 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Nov 27, 1996

The civil petition does not clearly set out the time periods. The federal complaint, which arose pursuant to a federal grand jury investigation, stated that Borden's activities continued at least until June, 1989. … The petition erroneously declares that "antitrust liability is established, leaving only damages to be proven at trial."

State of Louisiana v. Charles Williams

Louisiana Court of Appeal · Jul 16, 2025

A suspension lasts from the date a qualifying motion is filed until the date the trial court rules on the motion. … Because Williams’ plea agreement was clearly set forth in the record at the time of his plea, he is statutorily precluded from review.

Freeman v. Best Western Richmond Suites Hotel

97 La.App. 3 Cir. 1462 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Apr 22, 1998

Robbins has been practicing medicine since 1952, is board qualified in surgery and emergency medicine, and has performed operative orthopaedics as a part of his surgical practice since the 1950s. Dr. … Further, the court clearly stated that it did not believe Freeman deliberately intended to deceive anyone, and also added that her final determination was almost wholly based upon the testimony and demeanor of the witnesses

F. B. Williams Cypress Co. v. Martin

144 La. 767 · Supreme Court of Louisiana · Feb 3, 1919

The grant of the general power to organize road districts has the implied limitation that its exercise shall be reasonable, and, if it be clearly unreasonable, unjust, or oppressive, it will be held invalid by the courts. … ground that highways, turnpikes, canals, and railways, although owned by individuals under public grants or by private corporations, are publici juris; that they have always been regarded as governmental affairs, and their establishment

Smith v. W. Horace Williams Company

84 So. 2d 223 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Jan 3, 1956

Newman found evidences of the limited fractures, but very clearly stated that the plaintiff could return to work if he was willing to do so. … From what we have already said it clearly appears that in our opinion there was nothing capricious or arbitrary about the refusal to make payment in this case.

Miller v. City of New Orleans

95 La.App. 4 Cir. 1005 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Dec 14, 1995

or unless it is clearly wrong. … In order to establish entitlement to these benefits, a claimant must show that because of his injury, he is no longer able to earn wages equal to 90% or more of the wages earned prior to the injury. Schmitt v.

Alvin Fairburn & Associates, LLC v. Marshall Henry Harris and Cindy Wale

Louisiana Court of Appeal · Oct 18, 2021

He contended that Kistler could not establish that his statement was either defamatory per se or susceptible of a defamatory meaning. … In opposition to the motion, Kistler contended that she established factual support for the elements of her claim.

Jones v. Letcher

District Court, M.D. Louisiana · Sep 6, 2024

Though the Court cannot address qualified immunity on screening, the rationale of Aucoin coupled with the fact that the complaint is verified (R. … Doc. 4, p. 15) likely forecloses the qualified immunity defense on a motion to dismiss. 18 R. Doc. 4, p. 10. 19 Farmer v.

Consolidated Aluminum Corp. v. C.F. Bean Corp.

639 F. Supp. 1173 · District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Jul 16, 1986

Surveys performed following the accident established that the Texaco pipeline was clearly marked and buried to its required depth or greater, particularly in the area of the break. 36. … Even if this Court were to assume that the pipeline was mislaid as Bean contends, the evidence clearly establishes that Bean did not follow the requirements for dredging over and around Texaco’s pipeline, and that Bean’s

Markey v. Tenneco Oil Co.

439 F. Supp. 219 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Oct 21, 1977

Nonetheless, the law is clearly established that the employer may not use a collective bargaining agreement in any way as a shield when discriminatory practices are shown to exist. Carey v. … This contention is clearly erroneous.