summarized standard in Louisiana

2014Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Green, 588 So.2d 757 (La.App. 4th Cir.1991).

2014Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Green, 588 So.2d 757 (La.App. 4th Cir.1991).

2000App. 4 Cir. 2/10/99), 729 So.2d 664, 667-68 , writ denied, 99-0721 (La.7/2/99), 747 So.2d 15 , this court summarized the standard of review that applies when a defendant claims that the evidence produced to convict him was constitutionally insufficient: In evaluating whether evidence is constitutionally sufficient to support a conviction, an appellate court must determine whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

2000In State v. Ash, 97-2061, pp. 4-5 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2/10/99), 729 So.2d 664, 667-668 , writ denied, 99-0721 (La.7/2/99) 747 So.2d 15 , this court summarized the standard of review that applies when a defendant claims that the evidence produced to convict him was constitutionally insufficient: In evaluating whether evidence is constitutionally sufficient to support a conviction, an appellate court must determine whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

2000App. 4 Cir. 2/10/99), 729 So.2d 664, 667-68 , writ denied, 99-0721 (La.7/2/99), 747 So.2d 15 , this court summarized the standard of review that applies when a defendant claims that the evidence produced to convict him was constitutionally insufficient: In evaluating whether evidence is constitutionally sufficient to support a conviction, an appellate court must determine whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

2000In State v. Ash, 97-2061, pp. 4-5 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2/10/99), 729 So.2d 664, 667-668 , writ denied, 99-0721 (La.7/2/99) 747 So.2d 15 , this court summarized the standard of review that applies when a defendant claims that the evidence produced to convict him was constitutionally insufficient: In evaluating whether evidence is constitutionally sufficient to support a conviction, an appellate court must determine whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

2018More recently, this court summarized the standard for a JNOV in Joseph v. Broussard Rice Mill, Inc. , 00-0628 (La. 10/30/00), 772 So.2d 94 : As enunciated in Scott , [ 496 So.2d 270 ], a JNOV is warranted when the facts and inferences point so strongly and overwhelmingly in favor of one party that the trial court believes that reasonable persons could not arrive at a contrary verdict.

2017More recently, this court summarized the standard for a JNOV in Joseph v. Broussard Rice Mill, Inc., 00-0628 (La. 10/30/00), 772 So. 2d 94 : As enunciated in Scott, a JNOV is warranted when the facts and inferences point so strongly and overwhelmingly in favor of one party that the trial court believes that reasonable persons could not arrive at a contrary verdict.

2017App. 4 Cir. 10/29/15), 178 So.3d 1120 , this Court summarized the standard of review applicable to decisions of the CSC as follows: The Louisiana Constitution Article 10, § 8 provides in pertinent part, “No person who has gained permanent status in the classified state or city service shall be subjected to disciplinary action except for cause expressed in writing.” See Walters v. Department of Police of City of New Orleans, 454 So.2d 106 (La. 1984).

2017App. 4 Cir. 10/29/15), 178 So.3d 1120 , this Court summarized the standard of review applicable to decisions of the CSC as follows: The Louisiana Constitution Article 10, § 8 provides in pertinent part, “No person who has gained permanent status in the classified state or city service shall be subjected to disciplinary action except for cause expressed in writing.” See Walters v. Department of Police of City of New Orleans, 454 So.2d 106 (La. 1984).

2017App. 4 Cir. 10/29/15), 178 So.3d 1120 , this Court summarized the standard of review applicable to decisions of the CSC as follows: The Louisiana Constitution Article 10, § 8 provides in pertinent part, “No person who has gained permanent status in the classified state or city service shall be subjected to disciplinary action except for cause expressed in writing.” See Walters v. Department of Police of City of New Orleans, 454 So.2d 106 (La. 1984).

2017App. 4 Cir. 10/29/15), 178 So.3d 1120 , this Court summarized the standard of review applicable to decisions of the CSC as follows: The Louisiana Constitution Article 10, § 8 provides in pertinent part, “No person who has gained permanent status in the classified state or city service shall be subjected to disciplinary action except for cause expressed in writing.” See Walters v. Department of Police of City of New Orleans, 454 So.2d 106 (La. 1984).

2014Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Green, 588 So.2d 757 (La.App. 4th Cir.1991).

2014Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Green, 588 So.2d 757 (La.App. 4th Cir.1991).

2013A panel of this court summarized the standard to be used in reviewing excessive sentence claims in State v. Davenport, 07-254, pp. 3-4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/3/07), 967 So.2d 563, 565 , stating: The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and La.

2012A panel of this court summarized the standard to be used in reviewing excessive sentence claims in State v. Davenport, 07-254, pp. 3-4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/3/07), 967 So.2d 563, 565 , stating: |4The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and La.

2018More recently, this court summarized the standard for a JNOV in Joseph v. Broussard Rice Mill, Inc. , 00-0628 (La. 10/30/00), 772 So.2d 94 : As enunciated in Scott , [ 496 So.2d 270 ], a JNOV is warranted when the facts and inferences point so strongly and overwhelmingly in favor of one party that the trial court believes that reasonable persons could not arrive at a contrary verdict.

2016R.S. 49:964, This court summarized the standard of review under the APA in Clark v. Louisiana State Racing Comm’n, 12-1049, pp. 9-10 (La.App. 4 Cir. 12/12/12), 104 So.3d 820, 826-27 , as follows: A party aggrieved by a final agency decision in an adjudication proceeding is entitled to have that decision reviewed initially by the district court of the parish in which the agency is located.

2015In Braud v. Cenac, 03-1696 (La.App. 3 Cir. 7/14/04) 879 So.2d 896 , writ denied, 04-2101 (La.11/15/04), 887 So.2d 484 , a panel of this court summarized the factors that should be considered in this court’s determination of when a prescriptive period begins to run, when a patient, such as Ms. Hickman, does not immediately recognize that her condition may have been related to treatment or in this case, the lack thereof: Louisiana Revised Statute 9:5628’s one-year prescriptive period “commences running on the date the injured party discovers or should have discovered the facts upon which his cau

2015In Braud v. Cenac, 03-1696 (La.App. 3 Cir. 7/14/04) 879 So.2d 896 , writ denied, 04-2101 (La.11/15/04), 887 So.2d 484 , a panel of this court summarized the factors that should be considered in this court’s determination of when a prescriptive period begins to run, when a patient, such as Ms. Hickman, does not immediately recognize that her condition may have been related to treatment or in this case, the lack thereof: Louisiana Revised Statute 9:5628’s one-year prescriptive period “commences running on the date the injured party discovers or should have discovered the facts upon which his cau

2014The description need not be given with such particularity as to make resort to extrinsic evidence unnecessary.” Tircuit v. Burton-Swartz Cypress Co., 162 La. 319 , 110 So. 489, 492 .

2014The description need not be given with such particularity as to make resort to extrinsic evidence unnecessary.” Tircuit v. Burton-Swartz Cypress Co., 162 La. 319 , 110 So. 489, 492 .

2014This court summarized the standard for evaluating a sufficiency of the evidence claim in State v. Brown, 12-0626, pp. 6-8 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/10/13), 115 So.3d 564, 570-71 , as follows: In evaluating whether evidence is constitutionally sufficient to support a conviction, an appellate court must determine whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

2008The court summarized its analysis by stating that "Louisiana appellate courts have given conflicting messages about LUTPA's scope, with no state supreme court decision rendering the definitive answer." Hamilton, 938 F.Supp. at 373 .

2008The court then compared its binding precedent of Wang to the completely contrary decision in Barrios and cited other Louisiana decisions that have dealt with LUTPA claims brought by consumers of items other than those for personal, household or family use. [3] Hamilton, 938 F.Supp. 370 .

2000Co., 99-515 (La.App. 5 Cir. 10/26/99) , 746 So.2d 171 , this court summarized the standard of review on factual questions.

1996In Bussie v. Long, 286 So.2d 689 (La.App. 1 Cir.1973), writ denied, 288 So.2d 354 (La.1974), the court summarized the exception, stating: Our own jurisprudence also recognizes that the requirement of a peculiar and special interest in the performance of an official duty exists and is satisfied in those instances wherein it is charged that an unlawful performance of a duty, or refusal to perform, by a public official, discriminates against a citizen-taxpayer by either increasing his tax burden or otherwise injuriously affecting the taxpayer or his property. * * * * * * To the same effect, see C

1996In Bussie v. Long, 286 So.2d 689 (La.App. 1 Cir.1973), writ denied, 288 So.2d 354 (La.1974), the court summarized the exception, stating: Our own jurisprudence also recognizes that the requirement of a peculiar and special interest in the performance of an official duty exists and is satisfied in those instances wherein it is charged that an unlawful performance of a duty, or refusal to perform, by a public official, discriminates against a citizen-taxpayer by either increasing his tax burden or otherwise injuriously affecting the taxpayer or his property. * * * * * * To the same effect, see C

1996In Bussie v. Long, 286 So.2d 689 (La.App. 1 Cir.1973), writ denied, 288 So.2d 354 (La.1974), the court summarized the exception, stating: Our own jurisprudence also recognizes that the requirement of a peculiar and special interest in the performance of an official duty exists and is satisfied in those instances wherein it is charged that an unlawful performance of a duty, or refusal to perform, by a public official, discriminates against a citizen-taxpayer by either increasing his tax burden or otherwise injuriously affecting the taxpayer or his property. * * * * * * To the same effect, see C

1996In Bussie v. Long, 286 So.2d 689 (La.App. 1 Cir.1973), writ denied, 288 So.2d 354 (La.1974), the court summarized the exception, stating: Our own jurisprudence also recognizes that the requirement of a peculiar and special interest in the performance of an official duty exists and is satisfied in those instances wherein it is charged that an unlawful performance of a duty, or refusal to perform, by a public official, discriminates against a citizen-taxpayer by either increasing his tax burden or otherwise injuriously affecting the taxpayer or his property. * * * * * * To the same effect, see C

1991This court summarized the standard to be applied in an appellate review of quantum in Lee v. USAA Casualty Insurance Company, 540 So.2d 1083 (La.App. 1st Cir.), writ denied, 542 So.2d 514 , reconsideration denied, 544 So.2d 384 , 385 (La. 1989), reversed in part on other grounds, 571 So.2d 127 (La.1990) as follows: Before an appellate court can disturb a quantum award, the record must clearly reveal that the trier of fact abused its discretion in making the award.

1991This court summarized the standard to be applied in an appellate review of quantum in Lee v. USAA Casualty Insurance Company, 540 So.2d 1083 (La.App. 1st Cir.), writ denied, 542 So.2d 514 , reconsideration denied, 544 So.2d 384 , 385 (La. 1989), reversed in part on other grounds, 571 So.2d 127 (La.1990) as follows: Before an appellate court can disturb a quantum award, the record must clearly reveal that the trier of fact abused its discretion in making the award.

1991In Alumbaugh v. Montgomery Ward & Company, Inc., 492 So.2d 545 (La.App. 3d Cir.), writ denied, 495 So.2d 304 (La.1986), this court summarized the standard of proof first enunciated in Rougeau by stating: "We understand the standard as set out in Rougeau to mean that a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict can only be granted by the district judge when, without weighing the credibility of the evidence or the witnesses, there cannot be but one reasonable conclusion as to the correct and proper judgment.

1991This court summarized the standard to be applied in an appellate review of quantum in Lee v. USAA Casualty Insurance Company, 540 So.2d 1083 (La.App. 1st Cir.), writ denied, 542 So.2d 514 , reconsideration denied, 544 So.2d 384 , 385 (La. 1989), reversed in part on other grounds, 571 So.2d 127 (La.1990) as follows: Before an appellate court can disturb a quantum award, the record must clearly reveal that the trier of fact abused its discretion in making the award.

1991This court summarized the standard to be applied in an appellate review of quantum in Lee v. USAA Casualty Insurance Company, 540 So.2d 1083 (La.App. 1st Cir.), writ denied, 542 So.2d 514 , reconsideration denied, 544 So.2d 384 , 385 (La. 1989), reversed in part on other grounds, 571 So.2d 127 (La.1990) as follows: Before an appellate court can disturb a quantum award, the record must clearly reveal that the trier of fact abused its discretion in making the award.

1991In Alumbaugh v. Montgomery Ward & Company, Inc., 492 So.2d 545 (La.App. 3d Cir.), writ denied, 495 So.2d 304 (La.1986), this court summarized the standard of proof first enunciated in Rougeau by stating: "We understand the standard as set out in Rougeau to mean that a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict can only be granted by the district judge when, without weighing the credibility of the evidence or the witnesses, there cannot be but one reasonable conclusion as to the correct and proper judgment.

1982This court summarized the factors to be considered in weighing medical evidence in Rodriguez v. American International Insurance Company, 394 So.2d 621 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1980): The trial judge may accept or reject an opinion expressed by any medical expert depending on how impressed he is with the qualifications, credibility, and testimony of the expert.