|
| |
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 Courts -
Louisiana - March 15, 2006
|
| |
Caldwell Parish Police Jury v. Town of Columbia, No. 40,865-CA,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, SECOND CIRCUIT, March 15, 2006, Judgment Rendered
View this case - free
|
Overview: Because a town could not annex non-contiguous property without also annexing a corridor for connection, inter alia, court did not err in finding that as Columbia, La., Ordinance 2003-1 purported to annex more than was allowed under La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 33:180(C), which the town had used, the ordinance was an ultra vires act and was null and void.
|
|
| |
Cmty. Trust Bank v. First Nat'l Bank, No. 40,639-CA,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, SECOND CIRCUIT, March 15, 2006, Judgment Rendered
View this case - free
|
Overview: Where bank 1 allegedly held security interest in all inventory and general intangibles of borrower as reflected in UCC-1, court did not err in finding bank 1 failed to establish that any money in bank 2's account, that was set off by bank 2 on borrowers' default, was identifiable proceeds under La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 10:9-315 of bank 1's collateral.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
State v. Lawrence, No. 40,278-KA, No. 40,796-KA (Consolidated Cases),
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, SECOND CIRCUIT, March 15, 2006, Judgment Rendered
View this case - free
|
Overview: Evidence found in defendant's car was properly admitted because the officer had reasonable suspicion to stop the car, and the search of the car for weapons was justified for the protection of the officers because the officer had information that guns were used in the robbery.
|
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|