 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Johnson v. Hamilton Med. Group, 05-204,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, THIRD CIRCUIT, February 1, 2006, Opinion Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Given application of La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13:4203, court erred in awarding legal interest on plaintiff's award for future loss of earning capacity from date of judgment. He was entitled to legal interest from date of judicial demand. But plaintiff did not produce sufficient evidence and documentation for an award of past loss of earning capacity.
|
|||||
| Keller v. Messina, 05-745,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, THIRD CIRCUIT, February 1, 2006, Opinion Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where trooper hit injured person from behind, State offered only speculation as to potentially negligent conduct (comparative fault), by injured person. Such speculation was insufficient to rebut her evidence that she was executing proper turn and was free from fault. Trooper was presumed to have breached standard under La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 32:81.
|
|||||
| Lebert v. McNeese State Univ., WCA 05-856,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, THIRD CIRCUIT, February 1, 2006, Opinion Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although issue of prescription was properly before appellate court, trial court did not err in denying employer's exception of prescription; as employer had been paying claimant supplemental earnings benefits under La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 23:1221(3), pursuant to La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 23:1209, claimant was allowed 3 years in which to file his claim.
|
|||||
| Lemke v. Keiser & Auzenne, L.L.C., 05-893,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, THIRD CIRCUIT, February 1, 2006, Opinion Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Granting an exception of prematurity resulting in the dismissal of the claimant's defamation action was affirmed because the claimant's defamation action was premature, when the action for defamation arose out of the same set of operational facts as those at issue in the underlying litigation where the alleged statements were made.
|
|||||
| McCorvey v. McCorvey, 05-889,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, THIRD CIRCUIT, February 1, 2006, Opinion Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in sanctioning husband for discovery violations or in determining his income for child support, but retroactive child support was error under La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 9:315.21B(1) where he had been paying an interim award. Also wife was improperly allowed reimbursements for payments made on community property after the divorce.
|
|||||
| Reed v. Abshire, WCA 05-744,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, THIRD CIRCUIT, February 1, 2006, Opinion Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employee was entitled to penalties and attorney fees under La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 23:1201(F) as the employer's failure to authorize a pain management specialist, as referred by the treating physician, was a failure to furnish compensation benefits; further, the employer did not reasonably controvert the referral.
|
|||||
| Rein v. Luke Edwards, LLC, 05-754,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, THIRD CIRCUIT, February 1, 2006, Opinion Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Requirements of La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 3071 were fulfilled and fee dispute was res judicata where letter clearly set forth offer of compromise and demonstrated parties were making reciprocal concessions and negotiated check bore one party's endorsement and a notation of full and final payment and payment of the offer initially set forth in letter.
|
|||||
| Richard v. Mach. Specialty & Mfg., 05-621,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, THIRD CIRCUIT, February 1, 2006, Opinion Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employer and insurer's exception of prescription based on employee's workers' compensation claim being filed four days after anniversary date of his alleged accident was properly denied where denial was based on "developing injury" rule, as provided in La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 23:1209A; employee worked, although in pain, until he could work no longer.
|
|||||
| Robbins v. Dep't of Culture, Rec. & Tourism, NO. 2005-CA-0359,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, FOURTH CIRCUIT, February 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Office of Workers' Compensation properly denied disability benefits to the employee pursuant to La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 23:1221 where the OWC considered the lay testimony admitted into evidence and the employee did not present objective medical evidence to establish that he was permanently and totally disabled and could not work in certain settings.
|
|||||
| Roche v. Jefferson Davis Elec. Coop., Inc., 05-1009,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, THIRD CIRCUIT, February 1, 2006, Opinion Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: While duty not to neglect servitude could have been interpreted as specific duty owed to landowner sounding in contract, duty not to negligently damage his trees was a breach of La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 2315 sounding in tort and his action against utility was subject to La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 3492's 1 year prescriptive period and had prescribed.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
