 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Arabella Bus Barn, L.L.C. v. Whole Foods Mkt., Inc., NO. 2005-CA-0693,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, FOURTH CIRCUIT, March 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court erred in granting defendants' motions for summary judgment in a developer's breach of contract case where factual determinations as to whether the parties' actions extending an exclusivity agreement or whether, as of October 2000, the developer still had an opportunity to obtain the property development were for the trier of fact.
|
|||||
| Dunn v. Eastover Country Club, NO. 2005-CA-0496 CONSOLIDATED WITH: NO. 2005-CA-0497,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, FOURTH CIRCUIT, March 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The denial of a motion under La. Code Civ. Proc. Ann. art. 1972 for a new trial in an action concerning stray golf balls from a driving range was reversed because new evidence was not discoverable before trial since a country club was unaware that the judgment would have encompassed a netting system that included parties not before the court.
|
|||||
| Greenblatt v. Payne, NO. 2005-CA-0290,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, FOURTH CIRCUIT, March 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The prescription under La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 3492 of a defamation action was affirmed because the doctrine of contra non valentem did not suspend the prescription period where there was no factual basis excusing a three-year delay between the time a wife knew of an adverse letter and the time she proceeded to obtain a copy of the letter.
|
|||||
| Griggs v. Harrah's Casino, NO. 2005-CA-0321,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, FOURTH CIRCUIT, March 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although a manufacturer's forensic evidence indicated that a slot machine malfunctioned, a jury's finding that gamblers won a jackpot was not clearly erroneous because the jury could have concluded that outward manifestations of a jackpot win was evidence that the slot machine's computer caused the win to occur through random number generation.
|
|||||
| Halverson v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co., NO. 2006-C-0069,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, FOURTH CIRCUIT, March 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly granted summary judgment to insurer two on its claim that it was excess, rather than primary insurer, of leased vehicle for purposes of Louisiana's anti-stacking statute, former La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 22:680(D). Driver of vehicle could not recover from insurer two unless and until insurer one's policy limits were exhausted.
|
|||||
| Johnson v. Orleans Parish Sch. Bd., NO. 2005-CA-0796,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, FOURTH CIRCUIT, March 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: From residents' suit against the city and the school board, third-party defendant companies' exception of no cause of action under La. Code Civ. Proc. Ann. art. 934 was properly granted as the board's allegations relating to the companies' predecessor at the landfill, a salvager, did not involve depositing or dumping any hazardous materials.
|
|||||
| Leard v. Schenker, NO. 2005-CA-1125,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, FOURTH CIRCUIT, March 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court erred by denying a mother increased child visitation, La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 136, where an expert witness testified that it was not in the child's best interest to have increased visitation, yet social workers who supervised the visits with the mother presented evidence that there was love, affection, and emotional ties between the two.
|
|||||
| Lee v. Commodore Holdings, Ltd., NO. 2000-CA-1551,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, FOURTH CIRCUIT, March 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The term "activity" in Local Rules of the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit 20A was broad enough to include an action by an appellate court in addition to actions by the parties. Thus, the court's issuance of a show cause order on its own motion was sufficient to constitute "activity" under Rule 20A such that plaintiff did not abandon his appeal.
|
|||||
| Miguez v. Platinum Underwriters Reinsurance, Inc., 05-887,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, THIRD CIRCUIT, March 22, 2006, Opinion Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment in favor of the employer and its insurer was affirmed because there was no indication that the daughter, a non-employee, was a qualified user of the vehicle, and the vehicle was not being used for the employer's business purposes, but rather it was being used for a non-employee's personal business use.
|
|||||
| Poole v. Poole, No. 41,220-CW,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, SECOND CIRCUIT, March 22, 2006, Judgment Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred when it ruled previous child custody order in instant case was a considered decree and, therefore, the Bergeron burden of proof applied to the pending custody modification hearing; no language in custody agreement indicated trial judge considered evidence or that parties agreed to impose a Bergeron standard for future litigation.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
