 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| Arrington v. Galen-Med, Inc., NOS. 06-C-2968, 06-C-2923, 06-C-2944,,
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA, February 2, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a medical malpractice suit, intermediate appellate court erred in finding statutory cap contained within La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 40:1299.42(B) violated La. Const. art. I, § 22 because decedent's survivors, who had brought suit against physician and medical center, failed to plead any purposed violation of La. Const. art. I, § 22.
|
|||||
| Arrington v. Galen-Med, Inc., NOS. 06-C-2923, 06-C-2944, 06-C-2968,
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA, February 2, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court of appeals erred in declaring La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 40:1299.42(B) to be in violation of La. Const. art. I, § 22 in plaintiffs' malpractice action against a medical center where plaintiffs did not plead La. Const. art. I, § 22 as a ground for finding La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 40:1299.42(B) unconstitutional; issue was not ruled upon by trial court.
|
|||||
| Arrington v. Galen-Med, Inc., NOS. 06-C-2944, 06-C-2923, 06-C-2968,
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA, February 2, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A court of appeal erred in declaring La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 40:1299.42(B) to be unconstitutional in violation of La. Const. art. I, § 22 as any purported violation of La. Const. art. I, § 22 was not specially pled, nor was it made an issue in the district court because, inter alia, the question was never briefed and argued before the district court.
|
|||||
| In re Esukpa, NO. 06-OB-0687,
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA, February 2, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| In re Whitaker, NO. 06-B-2222,
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA, February 2, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney was suspended for 1 year and 1 day for misconduct while a judge for violating La. Code Jud. Conduct Canons 1, 2, and 3 and La. St. Bar art. XVI, R. 8.4 for issuing ex parte orders and directives to sheriff's office in blatant disregard of due process and writing letter of recommendation for a disbarred lawyer on official court stationery.
|
|||||
| In re Williams, NO. 06-B-2578,
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA, February 2, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney was disbarred for violating La. St. Bar. Ass'n R. art. XVI, § 1.3, 1.4, 1.8, 1.16(d), and 8.1(c) for, inter alia, neglecting 6 legal matters, failing to communicate with 7 clients, failing to protect 1 client's interest upon termination of representation, failing to cooperate with ODC in 4 investigations, and allowing 1 claim to prescribe.
|
|||||
| In re Yeager, NO. 06-OB-3011,
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA, February 2, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An order that the attorney be reinstated to the practice of law in Louisiana was proper because the disciplinary board recommended to the supreme court that the attorney be reinstated to the practice of law after considering the record in its entirety. The supreme court adopted the disciplinary board's recommendation.
|
|||||
| State v. Lacaze, No. 06-KP-1059,
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA, February 2, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An order granting relator postconviction relief was vacated and relator's second-degree murder conviction and sentence were reinstated where a witness for the State corroborated relator's involvement in planning the crime through his testimony that relator told him she would evade charges because the murder weapon was unrecoverable.
|
|||||
| Taylor v. Clement, NOS. 06-C-2518, 06-C-2581, 06-C-2600,
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA, February 2, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As question wether La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 40:1299.42(B), cap on medical malpractice damages, violated La. Const. art. I, § 22 was never briefed and argued in trial court, any purported violation of La. Const. art. I, § 22 was not made issue and court of appeal erred in declaring La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 40:1299.42(B) violated La. Const. art. I, § 22.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
