contention defense in Louisiana

1985Appellee's place much emphasis on Bates v. Foremost-McKesson Inc., 392 So.2d 389 (La.1980) as supporting the contention that an exception of no cause of action is the proper vehicle to have a claim dismissed for failure to utilize a grievance procedure.

1985Appellee’s place much emphasis on Bates v. Foremost-McKesson Inc., 392 So.2d 389 (La.1980) as supporting the contention that an exception of no cause of action is the proper vehicle to have a claim dismissed for failure to utilize a grievance procedure.

2015Further, we reject the plaintiffs’ contention that the rule articulated in Rowe v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 95-669 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/6/96) , 670 So.2d 718 , writ denied, 96-824 (La.5/17/96), 673 So.2d 611 , allows an award of special damages where the treatment is not related to the accident provided that the treatment was sought in good faith.

2015Id.

2006This Court, in Scott , 98-0452, pp. 4-5, 725 So.2d at 12-13 , dealt with one substance, nicotine, and one effect, health complications.

2004Moreover, in Simons Petroleum, Inc. v. Falgout, XXXX-XXXX at pp. 4-8, 873 So.2d at 68-71 , we found no merit in the taxpayer's contention that the claim for the additional amount of $18,080.42 in sales taxes was untimely and affirmed the trial court's award of that additional amount.

1999The trial court also disagreed with the Defendants' contention that the factors enunciated in the Goodrich v. Exxon Co., USA, 608 So.2d 1019,1023 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1992), writ denied, 614 So.2d 1241 (La. 1993) supported a finding that EE# 22-1 *1055 developed the Durham Lease.

1994La.C.Cr.P. art. 726 A (1977) requires notice to the state by a defendant if `[he] intends to introduce testimony relating to a mental disease, defect, or other condition bearing upon the issue of whether he had the mental state required for the offense charged.' "The purpose of the notice requirement of Article 726 A is merely to require discovery of the intent to use such evidence (when admissible, as on a plea of insanity), not to provide substantively for its admissibility on the issue of specific intent." Wade, 375 So.2d at 98 .

1988Even under the rule of Jackson, supra, the trial court committed no error because defendant had already established the true nature of the offense.

1986Plaintiff cites the Maryland case of Reserve Insurance Co. v. Duckett, 240 Md. 591 , 214 A.2d 754 (Ct.App.Md.1965) for the contention that the doctrine of either apparent authority or estoppel can be applied in an appropriate case where the broker's authority to bind the insurer is involved.

1986Plaintiff cites the Maryland case of Reserve Insurance Co. v. Duckett, 240 Md. 591 , 214 A.2d 754 (Ct.App.Md.1965) for the contention that the doctrine of either apparent authority or estoppel can be applied in an appropriate case where the broker's authority to bind the insurer is involved.

1981However, in order to underscore that a trial judge's ruling concerning the relevancy of evidence will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of a clear abuse of discretion, the following cases are cited: State v. Alford, 384 So.2d 761 (La.1980); State v. Echols, 376 So.2d 1244 (La.1979); State v. Weems, 358 So.2d 285 (La.1978); State v. Winston, 343 So.2d 171 (La.1977).

1981However, in order to underscore that a trial judge's ruling concerning the relevancy of evidence will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of a clear abuse of discretion, the following cases are cited: State v. Alford, 384 So.2d 761 (La.1980); State v. Echols, 376 So.2d 1244 (La.1979); State v. Weems, 358 So.2d 285 (La.1978); State v. Winston, 343 So.2d 171 (La.1977).

1981The essential elements of the doctrine of last clear chance were discussed in Deo Gracias v. Collins, 236 So.2d 295 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1970), as follows: "Before the doctrine of last clear chance can be invoked the litigant relying thereon has the burden of establishing, by a clear preponderance of the evidence, three essential elements: (1) he was in a position of peril of which he was unaware or from which he was unable to extricate himself; (2) the person against whom the doctrine is invoked actually discovered, or by the exercise of reasonable care, caution and observation, should have disc

1981However, in order to underscore that a trial judge's ruling concerning the relevancy of evidence will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of a clear abuse of discretion, the following cases are cited: State v. Alford, 384 So.2d 761 (La.1980); State v. Echols, 376 So.2d 1244 (La.1979); State v. Weems, 358 So.2d 285 (La.1978); State v. Winston, 343 So.2d 171 (La.1977).

1981However, in order to underscore that a trial judge's ruling concerning the relevancy of evidence will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of a clear abuse of discretion, the following cases are cited: State v. Alford, 384 So.2d 761 (La.1980); State v. Echols, 376 So.2d 1244 (La.1979); State v. Weems, 358 So.2d 285 (La.1978); State v. Winston, 343 So.2d 171 (La.1977).

1981The essential elements of the doctrine of last clear chance were discussed in Deo Gracias v. Collins, 236 So.2d 295 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1970), as follows: "Before the doctrine of last clear chance can be invoked the litigant relying thereon has the burden of establishing, by a clear preponderance of the evidence, three essential elements: (1) he was in a position of peril of which he was unaware or from which he was unable to extricate himself; (2) the person against whom the doctrine is invoked actually discovered, or by the exercise of reasonable care, caution and observation, should have disc

1981The essential elements of the doctrine of last clear chance were discussed in Deo Gracias v. Collins, 236 So.2d 295 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1970), as follows: "Before the doctrine of last clear chance can be invoked the litigant relying thereon has the burden of establishing, by a clear preponderance of the evidence, three essential elements: (1) he was in a position of peril of which he was unaware or from which he was unable to extricate himself; (2) the person against whom the doctrine is invoked actually discovered, or by the exercise of reasonable care, caution and observation, should have disc

1978Co., 144 So.2d 698 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1962), this court rejected the plaintiff's contention that his claim against defendant was on an open account where the evidence showed it was a suit on a contract for the performance of work.

1975In a later case, Succession of Butler, 294 So.2d 512 (La.1974), the Supreme Court held: "We agree with the contention of defense counsel that in a suit in quantum meruit interest is not allowed from the date of judicial demand.

1971Every earlier case (except Vincent v. Sharp, supra) was a wrongful death case, holding only that no action lies for the damages caused to another by the wrongful death.

1970The last group of bills relied on for reversal of the conviction and sentence, some 17 in all, 7 are predicated on the contention of defense counsel that the trial judge erroneously excused prospective jurors for cause over defendant’s objection on the mere general assertion- by the juror that he entertained conscientious scruples against the infliction of the death penalty, allegedly contrary to the holding of the United States Supreme Court in Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 , 88 S.Ct. 1770 , 20 L.Ed.2d 776 .

1970The last group of bills relied on for reversal of the conviction and sentence, some 17 in all, 7 are predicated on the contention of defense counsel that the trial judge erroneously excused prospective jurors for cause over defendant’s objection on the mere general assertion- by the juror that he entertained conscientious scruples against the infliction of the death penalty, allegedly contrary to the holding of the United States Supreme Court in Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 , 88 S.Ct. 1770 , 20 L.Ed.2d 776 .

1968In Vallette v. Maison Blanche Co., La.App., 29 So.2d 528 we considered a situation almost unbelievably similar to that which is here presented by the contention that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable and that there is liability since the defendants have not shown just what caused the accident and that they therefore have failed to show that there was no fault in the operation of the escalator or its design.

1968La.App., 211 So.2d 134 .) I The principal contention of error is that the trial court improperly admitted evidence on the trial of the exception of no cause of action: namely, a certified copy of a resolution of the State Bond and Tax Board of May 3, 1968, authorizing the Evangeline Parish Police Jury to call the election in question.

1965We feel that this situation, presented is more within the realm of the facts considered by the Court in Fudickar v. Inabnet et al., 176 La. 777 , 146 So. 745 .

1965We feel that this situation, presented is more within the realm of the facts considered by the Court in Fudickar v. Inabnet et al., 176 La. 777 , 146 So. 745 .

1965In the case of Dixie Drive It Yourself System v. American Beverage Company, 242 La. 471 , 137 So.2d 298 , Justice Sanders found that the driver of a truck who failed to display red signals had violated the safety statute requiring such display.

1965In the case of Dixie Drive It Yourself System v. American Beverage Company, 242 La. 471 , 137 So.2d 298 , Justice Sanders found that the driver of a truck who failed to display red signals had violated the safety statute requiring such display.

1963Plaintiffs cite the case of Hartman-Salmen, Inc. v. Maloney, La.App., 156 So. 83 , which case holds in part: “Therefore the fact that the surety on the bond resided outside of the jurisdiction of the court was not a circumstance that rendered the bond null and void because the surety might be shown to be competent upon such proof as the court would require.” Counsel for the defense cites no Louisiana cases in support of the contention that the rule of the Court is valid but relies exclusively on American Jurisprudence and Corpus Juris Secundum.