 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Chambers v. Saucier, CA 06-1290,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, THIRD CIRCUIT, February 07, 2007, Opinion Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a mother's action seeking to hold the father in contempt for failing to pay child support, as the award was an in globo award under La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 9:315.22(B), the amount of child support remained the same even after the oldest child reached majority, or until the father moved for a reduction when the oldest child was emancipated.
|
|||||
| Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co. v. Jones, 06-1277,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, THIRD CIRCUIT, February 7, 2007, Opinion Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment in favor of the attorney was affirmed because the title insurance company's claims had perempted, when La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 9:5605 and 9:5606 applied to the attorney's examination and certification of the title, and the alleged negligence occurred more than three years prior to the filing of the action.
|
|||||
| Cross v. Timber Trails Apts., 06-1037,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, THIRD CIRCUIT, February 7, 2007, Opinion Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In personal injury case in which plaintiffs obtained judgment against four defendants, trial court did not err in amending judgment under La. Code Civ. Proc. art. 1951 to specifically set forth name of each defendant as prior judgment had merely referred to defendants as "the defendants" and the amendment did not substantively change the judgment.
|
|||||
| DCDB Mgmt., L.L.C. v. Bennett, NO. 2005-CA-1084,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, FOURTH CIRCUIT, February 7, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of a buyer rescinding a contract as per La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 1823 as the parties all erroneously believed that the property was in conformity with zoning regulations and could be converted and used for the purpose of a multifamily dwelling, which vitiated the consent of the parties.
|
|||||
| Decou v. Target Corp., 06-1100,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, THIRD CIRCUIT, February 7, 2007, Opinion Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was properly granted in favor of the employer where the employee's testimony did not support the conclusion that the employer consciously desired an injury to occur or was substantially certain its conduct would cause injury to the employee; pursuant to La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 2315, the employee was not entitled to damages.
|
|||||
| Doyal v. Vernon Parish Sch. Bd., 06-1088,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, THIRD CIRCUIT, February 7, 2007, Opinion Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The reinstatement of workers' compensation benefits to the employee was proper because the employer failed to satisfy the specific requirements of La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 23:1208.1 since it failed to present evidence indicating how any previous injuries were related to those currently alleged by the employee.
|
|||||
| Frank v. Frank, 06-1223,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, THIRD CIRCUIT, February 7, 2007, Opinion Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney committed malpractice in representing client when she failed to file a motion to quash after 2 year period to bring client to trial had ended but court erred in assessing client with 80% fault for period after he was rejected for participation in drug program as, after that, there was no justification for attorney not to have filed motion.
|
|||||
| Gambel v. U-Park Sys. of La., Inc., NO. 2006-CA-0403, NO. 2006-CA-0404, NO. 2006-CA-0405, NO. 2006-CA-0406,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, FOURTH CIRCUIT, February 7, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A peremptory exception of prescription under La. Code Civ. Proc. Ann. art. 927 was granted in a case related to fire damage because an amended complaint adding a former lessee did not relate back under La. Code Civ. Proc. Ann. art. 1153 since only one of the four applicable factors were satisfied.
|
|||||
| Granger v. Middleton, 06-1351,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, THIRD CIRCUIT, February 07, 2007, Opinion Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a client filed his legal malpractice complaint more than a year after the record showed that he was aware of the lawyer's failures in his unsuccessful child custody case, the action was prescribed under La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 9:5605. The client's allegations of fraud did not change the applicability of La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 9:5605.
|
|||||
| Hebert v. Hebert, 06-1315,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, THIRD CIRCUIT, February 07, 2007, Opinion Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in denying a husband's rule for decrease in alimony to his former wife and in failing to find that he had sustained a significant and material change in circumstances under La Civ. Code Ann. art. 114 and La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 9:311(A) as his retirement, at age 69, had caused a substantial reduction in his income.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
