 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| State v. Shanklin, NO. 2006-KA-1151,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, FOURTH CIRCUIT, February 14, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's constitutional right to a speedy trial was not violated because the delay in the case was nine months, the delay attributable to the State was its five-month delay in reinstituting the charge, defendant was released when the case was dismissed, and there was no indication that he had lost any witnesses or evidence due to the delay.
|
|||||
| State v. Washington, NO. 2006-KA-1014,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, FOURTH CIRCUIT, February 14, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of purse snatching under La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 14:65.1 because (1) jury was aware of the discrepancy (if any) in the time frame given by victim and officers, and chose to believe them and not defendant; and (2) victim stated that she got a good look at defendant's face because of a nearby street light.
|
|||||
| Thibaut Oil Co. v. Holly, 2006 CA 0313,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, FIRST CIRCUIT, February 14, 2007, Judgment Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in granting company's motion to dismiss property owner's reconventional demand for damages on ground that owner had abandoned matter under La. Code Civ. Proc. Ann. art. 561 by not following up faxed motion with original because not only was the owner's fax received by company's counsel, but counsel responded in writing to the fax.
|
|||||
| Vanderbrook v. Jean, NUMBER 2006 CA 1975,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, FIRST CIRCUIT, February 14, 2007, Judgment Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in sustaining defendants' exception raising the objections of vagueness and nonconformity of the petition, dismissing the claims, because defendants failed to assert the dilatory exception raising the objections of vagueness and nonconformity of the petition, and as such, that exception was waived as to the original petition.
|
|||||
| Waguespack v. Richard Waguespack, Inc., NUMBER 2006 CA 0711,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, FIRST CIRCUIT, February 14, 2007, Judgment Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was properly awarded to insurer in plaintiff's negligence action where plaintiff's accident involving all-terrain vehicle was not within coverage of policy; because activity did not come within coverage of policy, plaintiff failed to show that insurer was a solidary obligor under La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 22:655(B)(1) as to his claim.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
