jurisprudence presumption in Louisiana

1973Our Supreme Court in the case of Taylor v. Dunn, 233 La. 617 , 97 So.2d 415, 421 (1957), stated the presumption regarding the status of property acquired during the marriage and the requirements of overcoming the presumption as follows: "Under the laws of this State, all property acquired during the existence of the marriage, whether purchased in the name of the husband or the wife, is presumed to be community property (Article 2402, Louisiana Civil Code), and the jurisprudence holds that the presumption is not overcome by a mere declaration of the spouses in a deed to the *542 wife that the l

1973Our Supreme Court in the case of Taylor v. Dunn, 233 La. 617 , 97 So.2d 415, 421 (1957), stated the presumption regarding the status of property acquired during the marriage and the requirements of overcoming the presumption as follows: "Under the laws of this State, all property acquired during the existence of the marriage, whether purchased in the name of the husband or the wife, is presumed to be community property (Article 2402, Louisiana Civil Code), and the jurisprudence holds that the presumption is not overcome by a mere declaration of the spouses in a deed to the *542 wife that the l

1973Our Supreme Court in the case of Taylor v. Dunn, 233 La. 617 , 97 So.2d 415, 421 (1957), stated the presumption regarding the status of property acquired during the marriage and the requirements of overcoming the presumption as follows: "Under the laws of this State, all property acquired during the existence of the marriage, whether purchased in the name of the husband or the wife, is presumed to be community property (Article 2402, Louisiana Civil Code), and the jurisprudence holds that the presumption is not overcome by a mere declaration of the spouses in a deed to the *542 wife that the l

1973Our Supreme Court in the case of Taylor v. Dunn, 233 La. 617 , 97 So.2d 415, 421 (1957), stated the presumption regarding the status of property acquired during the marriage and the requirements of overcoming the presumption as follows: "Under the laws of this State, all property acquired during the existence of the marriage, whether purchased in the name of the husband or the wife, is presumed to be community property (Article 2402, Louisiana Civil Code), and the jurisprudence holds that the presumption is not overcome by a mere declaration of the spouses in a deed to the *542 wife that the l

1973Our Supreme Court in the case of Taylor v. Dunn, 233 La. 617 , 97 So.2d 415, 421 (1957), stated the presumption regarding the status of property acquired during the marriage and the requirements of overcoming the presumption as follows: "Under the laws of this State, all property acquired during the existence of the marriage, whether purchased in the name of the husband or the wife, is presumed to be community property (Article 2402, Louisiana Civil Code), and the jurisprudence holds that the presumption is not overcome by a mere declaration of the spouses in a deed to the *542 wife that the l

1973Our Supreme Court in the case of Taylor v. Dunn, 233 La. 617 , 97 So.2d 415, 421 (1957), stated the presumption regarding the status of property acquired during the marriage and the requirements of overcoming the presumption as follows: "Under the laws of this State, all property acquired during the existence of the marriage, whether purchased in the name of the husband or the wife, is presumed to be community property (Article 2402, Louisiana Civil Code), and the jurisprudence holds that the presumption is not overcome by a mere declaration of the spouses in a deed to the *542 wife that the l

2014Stated otherwise, “our jurisprudence holds that while parties must be given fair opportunity to carry out discovery and present their claim, there is no absolute right to delay action on motion for summary judgment until discovery is complete.” Thomas v. N. 40 Land Dev., Inc., 04-0610, p. 31 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1/26/05), 894 So.2d 1160, 1179 (quoting Butzman v. Louisiana Power and Light Co., 96-2073, p. 4 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/30/97), 694 So.2d 514, 517 ).

2005Stated otherwise, "our jurisprudence holds that while parties must be given fair opportunity to carry out discovery and present their claim, there is no absolute right to delay action on motion for summary judgment until discovery is complete." Butzman v. Louisiana Power and Light Co., 96-2073, p. 4 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/30/97), 694 So.2d 514, 517 .

1992Peppard v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 482 So.2d 639 (La.App. 4th Cir.1986); Ardoin v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, 360 So.2d 1331 (La.1978).

1984Ardoin v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 360 So.2d 1331 (La.1978); Miller v. Board of Directors of Fireman's Pension and Relief Fund of City of Lake Charles, 378 So.2d 973 (La.App. 3d Cir.1979), writ denied 379 So.2d 1104 (La.1980); Orleans Parish School Board v. Pittman Construction Co., 372 So.2d 717 (La.App. 4th Cir.1979).

2018Mattel v. Pittman Const. Co., 248 La. 540 , 180 So.2d 696 (1965).

2018Mattel v. Pittman Const. Co., 248 La. 540 , 180 So.2d 696 (1965).

2013Williams Realty, Inc. v. Shamrock Construction Co., Inc., supra; Hebert v. McDaniel, supra; Stream v. LeJeune, 352 So.2d 714 , (La.App. 3rd Cir.1977); and Goudeau v. Hill, 410 So.2d 338, 339 (La.App. 4th Cir.1982).

2013Williams Realty, Inc. v. Shamrock Construction Co., Inc., supra; Hebert v. McDaniel, supra; Stream v. LeJeune, 352 So.2d 714 , (La.App. 3rd Cir.1977); and Goudeau v. Hill, 410 So.2d 338, 339 (La.App. 4th Cir.1982).

2006Allen v. Louisiana Wood Moulding Corp., 29,947 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1/23/98), 706 So.2d 636 .

2005He acknowledges the jurisprudence that states the principle of res judicata does not apply to multiple offender proceedings, but contends the Louisiana Supreme Court's decision in State v. Hill, 340 So.2d 309 (La.1976), supports his position that res judicata applies in this particular case.

2003Although Ms. Dixon argues that the fact this was a minor accident is not a valid consideration, the trial court correctly instructed the jury consistent with the current jurisprudence rule that "the minimal or minor nature of an automobile accident is a fact which may be considered by the [fact-finder]." Simon, 51 F.Supp.2d at 747 (citing Fletcher v. Langley, 93-624, p. 4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/2/94), 631 So.2d 693, 695 )) and collecting cases).

2003Although Ms. Dixon argues that the fact this was a minor accident is not a valid consideration, the trial court correctly instructed the jury consistent with the current jurisprudence rule that "the minimal or minor nature of an automobile accident is a fact which may be considered by the [fact-finder]." Simon, 51 F.Supp.2d at 747 (citing Fletcher v. Langley, 93-624, p. 4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/2/94), 631 So.2d 693, 695 )) and collecting cases).

2002Rogers v. Horseshoe Entertainment, 32,800 (La.App.2d Cir.8/1/00), 766 So.2d 595 , writ denied, 2000-2905 (La.12/8/00), 776 So.2d 464 .

2002Rogers v. Horseshoe Entertainment, 32,800 (La.App.2d Cir.8/1/00), 766 So.2d 595 , writ denied, 2000-2905 (La.12/8/00), 776 So.2d 464 .

1999Essentially, it is based on the premise that, in some circumstances, equity and justice require that the prescription "be suspended because the plaintiff was effectually prevented from enforcing his rights for reasons external to his own will." (citations omitted.) Wimberly v. Gatch, 93-2361 (La.4/11/94), 635 So.2d 206, 211 .

1998Hare v. Hodgins, *655 567 So.2d 670 (La.App. 5 Cir.1990). [1] Both parties rely on that case for very different reasons.

1998In Credit v. Whitfield, supra , the employer's evidence of the employee's misconduct on the job was presented by two witnesses who only repeated what others had told them concerning the alleged misconduct of the employee.

1997See: Sterling v. Insurance Co. Of Pennsylvania., 572 So.2d 835 (La.App. 4th Cir.1991).

1996Vermilion Corp. v. Vaughn, 397 So.2d 490 (La.1981).

1996Levatino *797 v. Domengeaux and Wright, P.L.C., 593 So.2d 721, 724 (La.App. 1st Cir.1991) writ denied, 596 So.2d 196 (La.1992).

1996The standard of review of general damages is whether the court abused its much discretion in fixing this award, The jurisprudence on this standard was most recently reviewed in Youn v. Maritime Overseas Corp., 623 So.2d 1257 (La.1993).

1995Trahan v. Security Life & Trust Co., 199 So.2d 617 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1967).