Case law

Williams v. Trinity Med. Mgmt., L.L.C.

331 F. Supp. 3d 557 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Jul 18, 2018

Specifically, Hyperion contends that the phrase, "any and all claims," clearly and unequivocally encompasses claims for contractual indemnity. … Simply because Plaintiff chose not to admit to the existence of the parallel litigation does not entitle him to immunity from the agreements he entered.

Shuff v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company

134 So. 2d 707 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Nov 6, 1961

Schneider, a highly qualified orthopedic specialist, who examined the plaintiff on March 28, 1960. Dr. … Following the formula established by our Supreme Court in Carrington v.

Matt v. Agro Distribution, LLC

904 So. 2d 928 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Jun 1, 2005

Steven Schutz, an agricultural consultant qualified as an expert, testified that the later tasseling date of 115 day corn allowed time for the ears to more fully develop. … A jury's factual determinations are subject to the manifest error standard of review and will not be reversed unless clearly wrong. See Guillory v. Ins. Co. of North America, 96-1084 (La.4/8/97), 692 So.2d 1029 .

State v. Duplissey

550 So. 2d 590 · Supreme Court of Louisiana · Oct 23, 1989

As to the improper conduct by the bailiff, the court noted that the record clearly established defendant knew of the bailiff's conversation before the verdict was rendered, but failed to object or move for a mistrial. … This court held that the improper communication was clearly prejudicial to the defendant and presumptively influential on the verdict. In State v.

McCall v. Corning

3 La. Ann. 409 · Supreme Court of Louisiana · Apr 15, 1848

The rule, in a qualified sense, is true. … Story, in his Treatise on Bills, very clearly intimates his dissatisfaction with the dicta in the East India Company’s case.

Plummer v. Marriott Corp.

654 So. 2d 843 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Apr 26, 1995

This well established principle was again explained and reiterated by our Supreme Court in the recent case of Ferrell v. … Where there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder's choice between them cannot be manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong. * * * In applying the manifestly erroneous—clearly wrongstandard to the findings

Southern Snow Manufacturing Co. v. Snowizard Holdings, Inc.

921 F. Supp. 2d 548 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Jan 31, 2013

(holding “an insurer’s duty to defend exists until the insurer can establish by undisputed facts that the insured's conduct is not covered.”); West v. … The Advisory Committee Notes of 1946 state that "[t]he addition of the qualifying word 'final' emphasizes the character of judgement, orders or proceedings from which Rule 60(b) affords relief; and hence interlocutory judgments

Santos v. Sacks

697 F. Supp. 275 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Sep 30, 1988

Rose’s only recognized that the requisite minimum contacts to sustain “general jur *282 isdiction” 8 are established where a foreign corporation is qualified under Florida law to transact business in Florida and has appointed … Plaintiffs do not allege that John Massicot guaranteed a specific result and, clearly, he performed work on the case. Therefore, plaintiffs’ complaint fails to state a claim in contract against the Massicot defendants.

United States v. State of La.

718 F. Supp. 525 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Aug 4, 1989

Thus, Southern's invocation of the clearly erroneous rule is inapposite. … The Court has endeavored to appoint a qualified Monitoring Committee with geographical and racial diversity. As a Louisiana resident and educator, Dr.

State v. Bussa

176 La. 87 · Supreme Court of Louisiana · Nov 28, 1932

The prescription of one year in criminal prosecutions is established by section 986 of the Revised Statutes as amended by Act No. 73, .of 1898. The period thus fixed is not .changed by the Code of Criminal Procedure. … The change in the law, to which defendant refers, is clearly a change in the pleading, that is, in the procedure, required in criminal prosecutions.

United Gas Pipe Line Company v. Landry

228 So. 2d 565 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Nov 17, 1969

As stated before, however, the Court is clearly convinced that the taking here is clearly and without doubt for a public purpose and hence will be allowed. * * * "In support of their contention that the proposed line is not … We are also satisfied that the record establishes the required public purpose and public necessity and that the trial court was correct in its conclusions. Defendants cite United Gas Pipe Line Company v.

Brown v. Pelican State Mutual Insurance Co.

93 La.App. 1 Cir. 0340 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Nov 10, 1994

Section 904(B) directs the Commissioner to establish rules and regulations “for the implementation and administration” of the filing requirement, giving “due consideration of the establishment of a proper phase-in period. … Although the trial court found that Pelican was insolvent, the evidence clearly supports the conclusion that Pelican’s continued business would have been hazardous to its policyholders or its creditors or the public.

United States v. Bradford

148 F. 413 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Dec 23, 1905

Even if it were true that to sustain the indictment in this case it was requisite to show that the carrying out of the conspiracy was to cause pecuniary loss, to the United States, I am satisfied the proof established that … But, conceding, arguendo, what is clearly untrue, viz., that a collateral attack was permitted in this cause, what then ?

Trotter v. Ruff

District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Jul 9, 2025

Courts are also afforded the unusual power to pierce the veil of the factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless. … Here, Shreveport Police Department does not qualify as a juridical person. See Cozzo v.

Kennedy-Fagan v. Estate of Graves

2007 La.App. 1 Cir. 1062 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Jul 21, 2008

all persons causing or contributing to the injury, death, or loss shall be determined, regardless of whether the person is a party to the action or a nonparty, and regardless of the person's insolvency, ability to pay, immunity … Based on these limited facts, I do not believe that the evidence clearly established that Ms. Graves consented to her own death immediately prior to the murder/suicide.

Lafayette Steel Erector, Inc. v. Constance

13 La.App. 3 Cir. 1367 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Apr 16, 2014

Where there are two permissible views of the evidence, a factfinder’s choice between them can never be manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong. Id. … Constance further submits 112that he is not qualified for the jobs offered given his advanced age, his lack of office and computer skills, and his educational level. 3 The WCJ determined that Appellants’ improperly converted

Armentor v. Safeway Ins. Co.

7 La.App. 3 Cir. 805 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Dec 19, 2007

Walton, 06-1103, pp. 2-3 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/7/07), 950 So.2d 922, 924 , we stated: A trial court's findings of fact will not be disturbed unless they are manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong. Fuselier v. … Thomas Montgomery, the only physician qualified to opine whether Armentor will need surgery in the future, testified that Armentor was not a surgical candidate when he last saw him in February of 2005. Dr.

State v. Brown

627 So. 2d 192 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Nov 17, 1993

However, the record clearly reveals Sabrina had no solid recollection of when or if these sexual acts occurred after the month of April, 1991. … I submit the following subsections of § 209 of the guidelines qualify as sufficiently aggravating to allow a departure: 2.

Chauvin v. Chevron Oronite Co., LLC

263 F.R.D. 364 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Sep 30, 2009

However, the numerosity requirement does not require the plaintiff to establish the exact number of potential class members. Id. … Consequently, typicality appears to be established at this time.

Johnson v. Louisiana Power & Light Co.

98 La.App. 4 Cir. 2271 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Jun 9, 1999

Dick, M.D., a neurologist previously qualified as an expert in a civil case in this state, who treated plaintiff. Dr. … wrong based on the evidence, or clearly without evidentiary support.