 |
|
 |
|
|
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 Confidential Party, NO. 05-B-2528,
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA, March 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| In re Easterling, NO. 04-OB-2431,
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA, March 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: State supreme court affirmed the recommendation that petitioner be denied admission under La. Sup. Ct. R. XVII, § 5(E) because not only had petitioner failed to disclose criminal convictions and academic suspensions when he applied to law school, petitioner also had forgery conviction and multiple traffic violations.
|
|||||
| In re Porter, NO. 05-B-1736,
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA, March 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney received a one-year suspension from the practice of law in the State of Louisiana because the attorney neglected his clients' legal matter and failed to communicate with them, and the attorney admitted that he improperly notarized a pleading that he later filed into a court record.
|
|||||
| In re Yates, NO. 05-B-1808,
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA, March 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney was suspended from the practice of law in Louisiana for six months, followed by one year of supervised probation, because the attorney neglected a client's legal matter, failed to cooperate with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel in its investigation, and failed to return an unearned fee.
|
|||||
| Lemann v. Essen Lane Daiquiris, Inc., No. 05-CC-1095,
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA, March 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Lower courts erred in denying summary judgment to paramedics after intoxicated young man refused transportation to hospital and later died; inter alia, no evidence suggested paramedics' exam was inadequate, and any responsibility to transport him was negated by his exercise of his La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 40:1299.56 right to waive medical treatment.
|
|||||
| McCorvey v. McCorvey, No. 2005-CJ-2577,
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA, March 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Minsky v. Shumate, No. 40,375-CA,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, SECOND CIRCUIT, March 10, 2006, Judgment Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding a pharmacist $2,500 in attorney's fees as he was not entitled to the full amount of the attorney's fees billed by his able and professional counsel; an award of the entirety of the attorney's fees would be unequitable and unreasonable.
|
|||||
| Page v. City of Winnfield, No. 40,747-CA,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, SECOND CIRCUIT, March 10, 2006, Judgment Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court erred in ruling that land purchasers' action against city and State of Louisiana for lease violations and delinquent rent payments was barred by doctrine of res judicata, La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13:4231, where purchasers' prior action was based on rental payments that were left in arrears. Purchasers had a cause of action and a right of action.
|
|||||
| Pickett v. Int'l Paper Co., NO. 40,313-CW,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, SECOND CIRCUIT, March 10, 2006, Judgment Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inter alia, where employees' original petition was filed parish without venue, prescription was not interrupted as to later named company; under La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 3462, prescription would only have been interrupted by serving company with process within prescriptive period which ended on August 9, 2000, and it was not served until March 2001.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
