 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Jackson v. Estate of Jones, No. 40,724-CA,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, SECOND CIRCUIT, March 8, 2006, Judgment Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Brother of deceased driver tried to intervene more than two years after fatal accident. Driver's estate was never plaintiff in suit, and was not even a party to suit at time of interventions as estate had been dismissed as result of settlement. Thus, brother could not be added as a new plaintiff as he was not sufficiently related to old plaintiffs.
|
|||||
| Jackson v. McCullen, 05-1132,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, THIRD CIRCUIT, March 8, 2006, Opinion Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in dismissing city council member's petition for writ of mandamus after a hearing on the merits and finding that an option to purchase contract for property for a museum signed by the mayor was not expressly prohibited by statute or constitution and the city council was authorized to and did ratify the actions of the mayor.
|
|||||
| James v. Tooke, NO. 40,641-CA,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, SECOND CIRCUIT, March 8, 2006, Judgment Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court did not err in granting the exception of prescription in favor of the attorney where the owner failed to file his legal malpractice action within one year of discovering that he was harmed in April 2000, as required by La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 9:5605(A).
|
|||||
| Lyons v. Pitts, No. 40,733-CA, No. 40,734-CA (Consolidated Cases),
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, SECOND CIRCUIT, March 8, 2006, Judgment Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Only provision in bond benefitting buyers was term for payment, which was not definitely stated, but law supplied presumption that term should benefit buyer, La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 1779, and equity favored granting buyers normal right to prepay, La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 2054. Buyers had 30 days to tender payment of balance before eviction.
|
|||||
| McCready v. McCready, No. 41,026-CA,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, SECOND CIRCUIT, March 8, 2006, Judgment Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err by applying lesser evidentiary standard of a material change in circumstance when it modified a default judgment that awarded the father sole custody because the parties had actually shared custody after the default judgment, which did not constitute a considered decree; thus the higher Bergeron rule standard did not apply.
|
|||||
| Post v. State, NO. 2005-CA-0256,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, FOURTH CIRCUIT, March 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal of a medical malpractice case was not clearly erroneous where the trial court determined that one expert witness was not believable due to the fact that he had never even performed a laparoscopic left inguinal hernia repair; moreover, there was evidence to show that the surgery did not cause subsequent thrombosis.
|
|||||
| Prestridge v. Bank of Jena, NUMBER 05-545,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, THIRD CIRCUIT, March 8, 2006, Opinion Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Bank was not liable for forgeries that occurred after a bank statement was mailed to customers because the evidence showed that they did not fulfill their duty to look at the statement under La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 10:4-406; however, automated banking procedures did not protect the customers, so the bank was liable for forgeries before the statement.
|
|||||
| Rico v. Sewerage & Water Bd., NO. 2004-CA-2006, CONSOLIDATED WITH: NO. 2005-CA-0173, CONSOLIDATED WITH: NO. 2005-CA-0183, CONSOLIDATED WITH: NO. 2005-CA-0414,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, FOURTH CIRCUIT, March 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a taxi cab passenger's suit, the City and the board were equally liable for the passenger's injuries sustained as a result of an accident caused by a manhole cover under La. Civ. Code Ann. arts. 2317, 2317.1 as the City owned the street and knew of an existing hazardous condition; and the board owned the manhole and was aware of the hazard.
|
|||||
| Sours v. Kneipp, NO. 40,770-CA,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, SECOND CIRCUIT, March 8, 2006, Judgment Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As the enactment of La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 9:5605 legislatively abrogated the 10-year prescriptive period for breach of contract in legal malpractice claims, the client's causes of action arising out of his lawyer's representation were extinguished and merged in the judgment of prescription, and were subject to the same one-year prescriptive period.
|
|||||
| State v. Brown, No. 40,769-KA,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, SECOND CIRCUIT, March 8, 2006, Judgment Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence was sufficient for a conviction of armed robbery in violation of La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 14:64 where victim had little difficulty identifying defendant in court as gun-wielding man who demanded his wallet on night in question, there was little deviation in record from operative facts, and no due process violation in identification procedure.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
