 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Hardy v. Horace Mann Ins. Co., 06-1428,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, THIRD CIRCUIT, May 2, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Loss of consortium award was affirmed because an award for loss of consortium was a separate and distinct claim from the primary victim's claim, and a claim for loss of consortium was not added to the primary victim's claim in determining if the damage award was within the jurisdictional amount of the court.
|
|||||
| Jones v. City of Natchitoches Police Dep't, CA 06-1387,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, THIRD CIRCUIT, May 2, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Police officer's termination was reversed because, although he received appropriate due process, the decision was based on the police chief's mistaken representation that La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 33:2500(B) required termination, and termination was excessive; suspension was available because he had not been suspended since 10 years earlier.
|
|||||
| Juneau v. State, CA 06-1653,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, THIRD CIRCUIT, May 2, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Despite new case law regarding the application of La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13:5104(A) relating to suits filed against a state agency, the law of the case doctrine was applied instead because the retroactive application of the new case law would have required an injured party to relitigate a case; the venue issue was the only one appealed.
|
|||||
| Littleton v. Enterkin, No. 41,867-CA,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, SECOND CIRCUIT, May 2, 2007, Judgment Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment in favor of the insurers was affirmed because the insurers produced uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM) rejection forms, the UM rejection form for the first insurer's policy was valid, and the insured never had UM coverage issued by the second insurer and another UM rejection form would have been pointless.
|
|||||
| Malbrough v. Dunn, 07-20,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, THIRD CIRCUIT, May 2, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Father's motion for a new trial after he was found in contempt for not paying child support arrearage was properly dismissed as untimely when father filed the motion outside of the seven-day limit of La. Code Civ. Proc. Ann. art. 1974 and did not pay the filing fees within five days of faxing the motion as required by La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13:850.
|
|||||
| Mathews v. Black Tie, L.L.C., CA 06-1581,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, THIRD CIRCUIT, May 2, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Order awarding judgment to customer in his action against dry cleaner for failing to return all of his articles of clothing was upheld where trial court's finding that customer had, by a slim margin, met his burden of proof was not unreasonable; customer had to prove each and every essential element of his claim by a preponderance of the evidence.
|
|||||
| Olson v. Rapides Parish Sheriff, 07-57,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, THIRD CIRCUIT, May 2, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a dispute over the ownership of property sold at a tax sale, summary judgment should not have been granted to a purported owner because genuine issues of material fact remained regarding compliance with La. Const. art. 7, § 25(A)(1) and La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 47:2184, as well as whether a purchaser was a proper defendant in the case.
|
|||||
| Pannell v. Encompass Ins. Co., 06-1601,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, THIRD CIRCUIT, May 2, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a back surgery was unrelated to a car accident, but the medical evidence did show that the accident aggravated a preexisting back injury and caused new neck and shoulder injuries, a $ 195,000 judgment in favor of an injured party was reduced to $ 90,000.
|
|||||
| Petry v. Hebert, CA 06-1447,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, THIRD CIRCUIT, May 2, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a homeowner's suit against the sheriff for an allegedly unlawful search of his home, the trial court properly granted the sheriff's exception of prescription under La. Civ. Code Ann. arts. 3492, 3462 as the suit prescribed on its face and there was no evidence that the sheriff prevented the homeowner from filing suit in a timely fashion.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
