 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Robinson Bros. v. Carter, NO. 2005 CA 2452,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, FIRST CIRCUIT, May 4, 2007, Judgment Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When a car repair shop's primary insurer became insolvent, the shop's excess insurer did not provide primary coverage of a car owner's reconventional claim that personal property was stolen from his vehicle that was stolen while at the shop because the policy unambiguously excluded the coverage if the primary insurer became insolvent.
|
|||||
| Samaha v. Rau, 2006 CA 1561,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, FIRST CIRCUIT, May 4, 2007, Judgment Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a medical malpractice suit, the trial court erred by granting summary judgment for the doctor. Under La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 40:1299.47H, the certified true copy of the medical review panel opinion attached to the motion for summary judgment was not conclusive evidence that the doctor complied with the standard of care.
|
|||||
| Sanders v. Sanders, 2006 CA 1401,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, FIRST CIRCUIT, May 4, 2007, Judgment rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court's order authorizing entry into a community property settlement did not become part of a final judgment for purposes of res judicata; moreover, it did not transform the settlement into a judicial partition under La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 9:2801 and prohibit a later challenged based on lesion under La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 814.
|
|||||
| Succession of White, 2006 CA 1002,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, FIRST CIRCUIT, May 4, 2007, Judgment Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court did not err in admitting a 1994 document to probate because, despite the fact that the decedent used the words "would like," this amounted to more than just a mere precatory suggestion; the intent of the document under La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 1611(A) was to dispose of her assets, if any were left after an illness.
|
|||||
| Weekly v. LWCC, NUMBER 2006 CA 1249,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, FIRST CIRCUIT, May 4, 2007, Judgment Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a former employee was unable to point to a specific event or occurrence that caused him to suffer back pain, it was error to determine that he met the burden of proving that he sustained a work-related accident under La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 23:1021(1), even though his pain began during a business trip.
|
|||||
| Welborn v. 19th Judicial Dist. Court, 2006 CA 2307,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, FIRST CIRCUIT, May 4, 2007, Judgment Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a domestic violence case, the District Court and the Family Court had concurrent jurisdiction as the District Court was not divested of its authority by the provisions of La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 46:2133, and the Family Court had subject-matter jurisdiction under La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 46:2132(4) and La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 46:2151(B).
|
|||||
| Wooley v. Lucksinger, 2006 CA 1167, CONSOLIDATED WITH 2006 CA 1168, CONSOLIDATED WITH 2006 CA 1169,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, FIRST CIRCUIT, May 4, 2007, Judgment Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court's order dismissing an HMO owner's third party demand against the Louisiana Department of Insurance based on detrimental reliance was affirmed as the agency's actions in executing its statutory powers were not promises for purposes of La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 1967. A third party negligence claim was retained as an affirmative defense.
|
|||||
| Wooley v. Lucksinger, 2006 CA 1164, CONSOLIDATED WITH 2006 CA 1165, CONSOLIDATED WITH 2006 CA 1166,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, FIRST CIRCUIT, May 4, 2007, Judgment Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Receivers' appeals of a judgment enjoining them from further prosecuting their contract fraud and related claims against an HMO owner were dismissed as moot where the appellate court had entered a final judgment holding that venue in Louisiana courts was proper and an out-of-state receiver had submitted her claims to the Louisiana courts.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
