Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
32 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1974–2024 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Louisiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Champagne v. American Southern Insurance Co.green2 sentences1997Champagne v. American Southern Insurance Company, 295 So.2d 437, 439 (La.1974). 1987Co., 295 So.2d 437, 439 (La.1974), declares that “the right of a litigant to jury trial is fundamental in character and the courts will indulge every presumption against a waiver, loss or forfeiture thereof.” We add that C.C.P. 5051 commands a liberal construction of the Code of Civil Procedure. | 5 | 6 |
Berrigan v. Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLPgreen2 sentences2012“The right of a litigant to a jury trial is fundamental in character and the courts will indulge every presumption against a waiver, loss, or forfeiture thereof.” Berrigan v. Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, 04-0189 (La.3/26/04), 871 So.2d 332 . 2012See Berrigan v. Deutseh, Kerrigan & Stiles, 04-0189 (La.3/26/04), 871 So.2d 332 (the right of a litigant to a jury trial is fundamental in character and the courts will indulge every presumption against waiver, loss, or forfeiture thereof). | 3 | 6 |
Dept. of Transp. & Develop. v. Walkergreen2 sentences2007See Berrigan v. Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, 04-0189 (La.3/26/04), 871 So.2d 332 , citing State v. Walker, 95-0185 (La.6/30/95), 658 So.2d 190 (the right of a litigant to a jury trial is fundamental in character and the courts will indulge every presumption against a waiver, loss, or forfeiture). 2004See State v. Walker, 95-0185 (La.6/30/95), 658 So.2d 190, 192 (The right of a litigant to a jury trial is fundamental in character and the courts will indulge every presumption against a waiver, loss, or forfeiture thereof.) KIMBALL, J., would deny the writ. | 3 | 4 |
Duplantis v. US Fid. & Guaranty Ins. Corp.green2 sentences1996Champagne v. American Southern Insurance Company, 295 So.2d 437, 439 (La.1974); Duplantis v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Insurance Corporation, 342 So.2d 1142, 1143 (La.App. 1st Cir.1977). 1996Champagne v. American Southern Insurance Company, 295 So.2d 437, 439 (La.1974); Duplantis v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Insurance Corporation, 342 So.2d 1142, 1143 (La. | 2 | 2 |
Alkazin v. City of Baton Rougegreen2 sentences2020A.lkazin v. City of Baton Rouge, 97- 0738 ( La. lst Cir. App. 11/ 7/ 97), 705 So. 2d 208, 211 . 2005The courts will indulge every presumption against a waiver, loss, or forfeiture of the right of a litigant to a civil jury trial. *550 Alkazin v. City of Baton Rouge, 97-0738 (La.App. 1 Cir. 11/7/97) , 705 So.2d 208, 212 . | 1 | 7 |
Hicks v. Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State U.green2 sentences2008Hicks v. Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University, 166 So.2d 279 (La.App. 1st Cir.1964); Arrington v. McCarthy [ McCarty ], 136 So.2d 119 (La.App. 3d Cir.1962); Abercrombie v. Gilfoil [, 205 So.2d 461 (La.App. 1st Cir.1967)], supra. Of course, R.S. 13:5104 prohibits trial by jury in suits against the State or other public bodies. 1977See e.g., Hicks v. Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University, 166 So.2d 279 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1964). | 1 | 3 |
Cambridge Corner Corp. v. Menardgreen1 sentence1995The jurisprudence likewise establishes that the'right of a litigant to jury trial is fundamental in character and the courts will indulge every presumption against a waiver, loss or forfeiture thereof.” The Louisiana Supreme Court held in Cambridge Corner Corp. v. Menard, 525 So.2d 527, 529-30 (La.1988): Plaintiffs or defendant’s right to a jury trial depends on the good faith amount in dispute and not necessarily on the amount initially demanded by the plaintiff.... | 1 | 1 |
Hortman-Salmen Co. v. Whitegreen2 sentences1986The jurisprudence likewise establishes that the right of a litigant to jury trial is fundamental in character and the courts will indulge every presumption against a waiver, loss or forfeiture thereof." Art. 1732(1)'s denial of jury trial when the amount in dispute does not exceed $10,000 is an exception to the general rule of art. 1731. "[O]ne who contends that he comes within an exception to a general rule, established by a statute, must prove it." Hortman-Salmen v. White, 168 La. 1049 , 123 So. 709, 711 (1929). 1986The jurisprudence likewise establishes that the right of a litigant to jury trial is fundamental in character and the courts will indulge every presumption against a waiver, loss or forfeiture thereof." Art. 1732(1)'s denial of jury trial when the amount in dispute does not exceed $10,000 is an exception to the general rule of art. 1731. "[O]ne who contends that he comes within an exception to a general rule, established by a statute, must prove it." Hortman-Salmen v. White, 168 La. 1049 , 123 So. 709, 711 (1929). | 1 | 1 |
Piper v. Rabalaisgreen1 sentence1984Arts. 1731-1735 and was recognized in Piper v. Rabalais, 407 So.2d 751, 752-753 (La.App. 1st Cir.1981), which stated: [W]e will address the question of the allegedly defective jury selection system because of plaintiff's contention that she did not knowingly waive a constitutional right and because of the jurisprudence that the right of a litigant to a jury trial is fundamental in character and the courts will indulge every presumption against a waiver, loss or forfeiture. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Brewer v. Loewer
green
2 sentences1986Brewer v. Loewer, 383 So.2d 1325 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1980), writ denied, 391 So.2d 456 (La. 1980). 1986Brewer v. Loewer, 383 So.2d 1325 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1980), writ denied, 391 So.2d 456 (La. 1980). | 3 | 1984–1986 |
Brewer v. Loewer
neutral
2 sentences1986Brewer v. Loewer, 383 So.2d 1325 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1980), writ denied, 391 So.2d 456 (La. 1980). 1986Brewer v. Loewer, 383 So.2d 1325 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1980), writ denied, 391 So.2d 456 (La. 1980). | 2 | 1986–1986 |
Willeby v. JE Merit Constructors, Inc.
neutral
1 sentence2024Willeby v. JE Merit Constructors, Inc., 04-2421 (La. App. 1 Cir. 6/10/05), 917 So.2d 21, 23 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Abercrombie v. Gilfoil
green
1 sentence2008Hicks v. Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University, 166 So.2d 279 (La.App. 1st Cir.1964); Arrington v. McCarthy [ McCarty ], 136 So.2d 119 (La.App. 3d Cir.1962); Abercrombie v. Gilfoil [, 205 So.2d 461 (La.App. 1st Cir.1967)], supra. Of course, R.S. 13:5104 prohibits trial by jury in suits against the State or other public bodies. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Arrington v. McCarty
green
1 sentence2008Hicks v. Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University, 166 So.2d 279 (La.App. 1st Cir.1964); Arrington v. McCarthy [ McCarty ], 136 So.2d 119 (La.App. 3d Cir.1962); Abercrombie v. Gilfoil [, 205 So.2d 461 (La.App. 1st Cir.1967)], supra. Of course, R.S. 13:5104 prohibits trial by jury in suits against the State or other public bodies. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Guzman v. Crispy Catfish & Seafood, Inc.
neutral
1 sentence2000Id. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Hill v. Green
green
1 sentence1987With those principles in mind, we apply the governing rule in this case, C.C.P. 1733 C: “The pleading demanding a trial by jury shall be filed not later than ten days after the service of the last pleading directed to any issue triable by a jury....” Barberito v. Green, 275 So.2d 407 (La.1973), holds that an answer to an amending petition demanding greater damages is itself a pleading directed to an issue triable by jury within C.C.P. 1733 C (then numbered 1732), and that a request for trial by jury in such an answer is timely. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.