 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Charles v. Charles, 2005 CA 0129,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, FIRST CIRCUIT, February 10, 2006, Date of Judgment
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred when it rendered a judgment after the community partition hearing under La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 9:2801, which purported to address a traversal of the assets and liabilities listed in the wife's sworn descriptive list, since those had already been deemed to be a judicial determination of the community assets and liabilities.
|
|||||
| Cook v. State, 2005 CA 0475,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, FIRST CIRCUIT, February 10, 2006, Judgment Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in excluding all evidence regarding a trooper's polygraph results, including whether he took the test and whether he passed or failed it, because polygraph results were inadmissible in civil trials.
|
|||||
| Davis v. St. Francisville Country Manor, LLC, NUMBER 2005 CA 0072,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, FIRST CIRCUIT, February 10, 2006, Judgment Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's grant of an exception for no cause of action was reversed because to the extent plaintiff was seeking money damages for violations of the Nursing Home Residents Bill of Rights Act, La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 40:2010.6 et seq. that occurred before La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 40:2010.9 was amended, plaintiff was not limited to injunctive relief.
|
|||||
| Drapcho v. Drapcho, 2005 CA 0003,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, FIRST CIRCUIT, February 10, 2006, Date of Judgment
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in ordering wife to reimburse husband for education expenses because parties had agreed in October 2001 that wife would reimburse husband and the execution of a December 2001 agreement distributing community property and waiving reimbursement, only waived reimbursement of claims related to community property.
|
|||||
| Fagan v. LeBlanc, NO. 2005 CA 1845,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, FIRST CIRCUIT, February 10, 2006, Judgment Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment for dentist was proper in a medical malpractice action where patient failed to present sufficient expert evidence to show the dentist breached the standard of care, but trial court erred in amending the judgment that contained an error in the dentist's name before granting the patient's motion for a new trial.
|
|||||
| Fagan v. LeBlanc, NO. 2004 CA 2743,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, FIRST CIRCUIT, February 10, 2006, Judgment Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court did not err by granting the dentist summary judgment under La. Code Civ. Proc. Ann. art. 966(B) in the patient's medical malpractice lawsuit because there was no evidence in the record to support her claim that the dentist breached the applicable standard of care or that the patient was not adequately informed of the procedure.
|
|||||
| Granda v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 2004 CA 1722,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, FIRST CIRCUIT, February 10, 2006, Judgment Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in granting summary judgment for the parish in parents' suit to recover for injuries their daughter sustained because material fact issues existed as to whether the width and condition of the travel lane and road shoulder presented an unreasonable risk of harm that might have prevented the driver of the car from regaining control.
|
|||||
| Granda v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 2004 CA 2012,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, FIRST CIRCUIT, February 10, 2006, Judgment Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment in favor of the utility company was affirmed because the utility pole was not located in the traveled portion of the roadway or on the shoulder of the roadway, so it did not pose an unreasonable risk of harm to those using the roadway.
|
|||||
| Hamilton v. Winder, 2004 CA 2644,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, FIRST CIRCUIT, February 10, 2006, Judgment Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment in favor of defendants in a claimant's medical malpractice action was vacated and remanded for a new trial because the trial court erred in summarily removing a juror without first determining his unavailability, when the trial court did not attempt in any manner to contact the juror before disqualifying him.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
