 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Aday v. State through Dep't of Transp. & Dev., 06-1181,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, THIRD CIRCUIT, February 7, 2007, Opinion Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was properly granted to a driver in a personal injury action against a state agency based on an accident that occurred due to a large drop-off on a shoulder of a roadway because the fact that repairs to such were prioritized was not relevant to the issue of liability; liability was premised on knowledge and timeliness of repairs.
|
|||||
| Arnold v. Hancock, 06-632,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, THIRD CIRCUIT, February 7, 2007, Opinion Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court properly held that a subsequent note did not extinguish or novate a prior secured note where it correctly articulated the applicable law and the evidence clearly showed no intent to extinguish or novate the original secured note and mortgage. The interest charged was improperly calculated, but the attorney fee award was proper.
|
|||||
| Arvie v. Safeway Ins. Co., 06-1266,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, THIRD CIRCUIT, February 7, 2007, Opinion Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court did not manifestly err in finding an insurer arbitrary and capricious in its handling of an insured's claim and in awarding attorney fees pursuant to La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 22:1220; the insurer had failed consistently to communicate the status of the claim to the insured on a regular basis.
|
|||||
| Baca v. Natchitoches Parish Hosp., 06-1132,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, THIRD CIRCUIT, February 7, 2007, Opinion Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: OWC had not erred in finding employee proved by preponderance of evidence his injury was sustained in work-related accident; employee consistently recounted events of day he was injured in his employee report form, his pre-trial interview, and his trial testimony, and employee insisted he had never stated he was injured while playing volleyball.
|
|||||
| Barton v. U.S. Agencies Cas. Ins. Co., No. 41,950-CA,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, SECOND CIRCUIT, February 7, 2007, Judgment Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was granted to an insurer in a dispute over motor vehicle insurance coverage because a driver did not have express or implied permission to take a car based on a familial relationship or the fact that the driver had moved the car in the driveway before; therefore, coverage did not exist under La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 32:900(B)(2).
|
|||||
| Beach v. Peter Scalfano Enters., 06-1139,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, THIRD CIRCUIT, February 7, 2007, Opinion Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An exception of prescription should have been granted in a personal injury case because it was timely pled with an answer under La. Code Civ. Proc. Ann. art. 929(B), joint liability between a food company and another party was not shown under La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 2324, and the case was filed outside the period in La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 3492.
|
|||||
| Bell v. Am. Int'l Group, 06-1242,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, THIRD CIRCUIT, February 7, 2007, Opinion Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case where an injured party suffered a fall during a transport from a vessel to a fixed platform, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, 43 U.S.C.S. § 1331, did not apply where the evidence showed that the injured party never made it to the platform; therefore, the claim was prescribed under 46 U.S.C.S. § 763(a).
|
|||||
| Butterfield v. Turner Indus., 06-1098,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, THIRD CIRCUIT, February 7, 2007, Opinion Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: WCJ erred in finding claimant met his burden of proving that an La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 23:1021 accident had occurred on the job because of, inter alia, the claimant's lack of credibility; based on the numerous inconsistencies in testimony, "serious doubt" existed and there was a lack of corroborating evidence in form of testimony or medical records.
|
|||||
| Cannon v. Hamilton Transp., 06-1302,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, THIRD CIRCUIT, February 07, 2007, Opinion Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: WCJ did not err in failing to uphold an employer's fraud defense under La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 23:1208 as the video submitted by the employer showing the employee working on two cars for less than one-half hour each over a three day period did not establish that he did work incompatible with the restrictions placed on him by his physicians.
|
|||||
| Carrollton Cent. Plaza Assocs. v. Piccadilly Rests., LLC, NO. 2006-CA-0731,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, FOURTH CIRCUIT, February 7, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A lessee was properly evicted from a building for failing to make repairs, as required by the terms of a lease, within several months of a hurricane; the evidence showed that the lessee was still trying to decide whether to rebuild. Even though the hurricane was a force majeure event, the lessee failed to assert the clause in the required time.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
