 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Fremin v. Cabral, NO. 05-CA-932,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, FIFTH CIRCUIT, March 28, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment in favor of the insurer was reversed and remanded because there were factual issues material to the decision of whether the exclusionary clause for intentional acts in the insureds' homeowner policy was applicable to precluded coverage and precluded a defense to the suit filed by the neighbors.
|
|||||
| In re Gramercy Plant Explosion at Kaiser, NO. 04-CA-1151 C/W 04-CA-1152 THROUGH 04-CA-1191,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, FIFTH CIRCUIT, March 28, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a suit arising out of explosion at industrial plant, trial court erred in granting JNOV, pursuant to La. Code Civ. Proc. Ann. art. 1811(F), against corporation that manufactured electrical wiring mounts because reasonable persons could arrive at a contrary verdict, as jury did, in consideration of evidence regarding negligence.
|
|||||
| Lewis v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., NO. 05-CA-807,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, FIFTH CIRCUIT, March 28, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In personal injury suit arising out of car accident, jury did not err in failing to award general damages to injured passenger because of inconsistencies in testimony; matter turned on jury's assessment of witness credibility. Decision not to award fees and costs was discretionary pursuant to La. Code Civ. Proc. Ann. art. 1920.
|
|||||
| Packard v. Razza, NO. 05-CA-863,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, FIFTH CIRCUIT, March 28, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In medical malpractice suit, summary judgment for physician was proper because consent forms, as required by La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 40:1299.40, were explicit that certain devices would be implanted during patient's surgery; moreover, injury sustained by the patient did not result from implantation of device.
|
|||||
| Riedlinger v. Davis, NO. 05-CA-837,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, FIFTH CIRCUIT, March 28, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under La. Code Civ. Proc. Ann. art. 153, trial court correctly proceeded with hearing on motion for summary judgment; motion to recuse was filed on April 6, 2005 and denied on April 8, 2005, and summary judgment motion was heard on April 12, 2005; thus motion to recuse had been properly denied before hearing on summary judgment motion was held.
|
|||||
| Rome v. Ingram Barge Co., NO. 05-CA-877,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, FIFTH CIRCUIT, March 28, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In property owners' trespass action, the trial court properly granted a preliminary injunction pursuant to La. Code Civ. Proc. Ann. art. 3663 ordering the barge company to cease the warehousing of barges immediately in front of the owners' properties as the owners had a right to protect their ownership, possession, or enjoyment of their property.
|
|||||
| Seidl v. Zatarain's, Inc., NO. 05-CA-780,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, FIFTH CIRCUIT, March 28, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In worker's compensation matter, worker was not entitled to penalties and attorney's fees related to payment of medical expenses because applicable prescription period was one year under La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 23:1201. Worker was not entitled to supplemental earnings benefits because he refused employer's offer of light or full-duty work.
|
|||||
| State v. Ducote, NO. 05-KA-910,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, FIFTH CIRCUIT, March 28, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's 3 year sentence for operating a vehicle while intoxicated (DWI), third offense, in violation of La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 14:98(D), was not excessive; obviously, defendant had a substance abuse problem with which she had not come to terms and trial judge specifically found defendant's impaired condition was not due to her medical condition.
|
|||||
| State v. Fazande, NO. 05-KA-901,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, FIFTH CIRCUIT, March 28, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A deputy's testimony did not impermissibly express an opinion of defendant's guilt on the charged offense, in violation of La. Code Evid. Ann. art. 704, as the hypothetical posed by the prosecution did not parallel the charged drug offense. Rather, the prosecution's hypothetical was presented to clarify an identification issue raised by defendant.
|
|||||
| State v. Gregory, NO. 05-KA-628,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, FIFTH CIRCUIT, March 28, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an armed robbery case, the trial judge did not err in admitting defendant's inculpatory taped statements under La. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 703(D) and La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 15:451 as defendant acknowledged that she was advised of her rights, was freely speaking to the officers, and signed a waiver of rights form.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
