 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| In re Jones, NO. 05-B-2549,
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA, February 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A lawyer's failure to cooperate with his probation monitors and his act of unreasonably failing to execute a probation plan frustrated the supreme court's prior imposition of sanctions and constituted misconduct that warranted the imposition of a previously deferred suspension.
|
|||||
| Lee v. Naquin, NO. 05-CA-606,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment in favor of the company and its insurer was affirmed because the company, the insured, chose to reject uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage on the form prescribed by the commissioner of insurance, and coverage was rejected prior to the accident involving the employee.
|
|||||
| Millican v. River Rd. Constr., Inc., NO. 05-CA-485,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The installation of sheeting was not the pile driving necessary to incur liability under La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 667 and where the homeowners failed to show a causal link between the construction activities and their damage, summary judgment was properly entered for the construction company and the parish.
|
|||||
| State v. Christian, NO. 05-KA-635,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court vacated defendant's sentence and remanded the matter back to the trial court for further proceedings as the trial court failed to rule on defendant's post-verdict motion for a judgment of acquittal, and La. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 821 required a ruling on that motion before defendant could be sentenced.
|
|||||
| State v. Jupiter, NO. 05-KA-869,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pursuant to La. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. arts. 914 and 881.1, appeal of sentence was untimely and appellate court did not have jurisdiction; defendant filed a motion to reconsider sentence more than 30 days following imposition of his sentence and thus filing of that motion was untimely; because of that, defendant's motion for appeal was untimely.
|
|||||
| State v. Nguyen, NO. 05-KA-569,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction of second degree murder, La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 14:30.1, where defendant followed victim home after a bar fight and fired shots, killing victim; jury could have reasonably concluded that defendant had required state of mind when he aimed lethal weapon and discharged it in direction of victim.
|
|||||
| State v. Ramee, NO. 05-CA-748,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Sutherlin v. Sutherlin, NO. 05-CA-535,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court did not err by determining that the husband owed the wife $ 2,290 in interim spousal support arrearages where the husband voluntarily entered into a consent judgment and the trial court properly credited the husband with only for those spousal support payments received after the agreement was signed.
|
|||||
| Boatman v. Gorman, NO. 2005 CW 1369,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, FIRST CIRCUIT, February 7, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Discussion of court's ruling on exception of no right of action under direct action statute, La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 22:655, was pretermitted; there was no cause of action against insurer because of lack of a proper reservation of rights in settlement agreement which had never named insured in petition and had released him in settlement documents.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
