 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Culpepper & Carroll, PLLC v. Cole, NO. 05-C-1136,
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA, April 4, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court reversed an award of attorney fees to an attorney because the attorney was not entitled to attorney fees under the contingent fee agreement, and awarding fees on the basis of a settlement offer that the client rejected would violate the client's fundamental right to control a case under La. St. Bar art. XVI, R. 1.2.
|
|||||
| In re Fontenot, NO. 06-OB-0795,
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA, April 4, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| In re LaMont, NO. 04-OB-2364,
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA, April 4, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Following a character and fitness hearing pursuant to La. Sup. Ct. R. XVII, § 9(B), the state supreme court held that a petitioner's application to sit for the state bar exam was permanently denied because petitioner cheated by talking to the applicant next to her.
|
|||||
| In re Rojas, NO. 04-OB-1819,
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA, April 4, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Following a character and fitness hearing pursuant to La. Sup. Ct. R. XVII, § 9(B), the state supreme court held that a petitioner's application to sit for the state bar exam was permanently denied because petitioner cheated by talking to the applicant next to her.
|
|||||
| Lewis v. Succession of Johnson, No. 2005-C-1192,
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA, April 4, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Lower courts erred in holding tax sale was valid because tax collector and sheriff were required to provide each co-owner with actual or written notice of tax sale under La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 47:2180, and the practice of providing notice to only one co-owner deprived the other co-owners of due process, and thus rendered the tax sale null and void.
|
|||||
| Moss v. State, No. 05-CC-1963,
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA, April 4, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Lower courts erred in denying transportation department's motion for release of a non-party's medical records because La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13:3715.1(B)(5) provided for disclosure, after a contradictory hearing, if "proper," even if none of the exceptions to the heath care provider privilege set forth in La. Code Evid. Ann. art. 510(B)(2) applied.
|
|||||
| Pumphrey v. City of New Orleans, NO. 05-C-979,
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA, April 4, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A self-insured city was exempt from the sanctions outlined in La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 22:657(C) for payment delays for health insurance claims because the self-insurance statute, La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 33:3062, prevailed over the more general insurance law provisions of La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 22:657(C).
|
|||||
| State v. Lee, No. 2005-K-0835,
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA, April 4, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| State v. Sherman, NO. 05-K-0779,
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA, April 4, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Officer had probable cause to arrest defendant when he stated that he did not have a driver's license. Therefore, subsequent search of defendant, which uncovered cocaine and served as basis for his drug conviction, was lawful under Fourth Amendment, even though it preceded defendant's arrest, because it did not serve as part of its justification.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
