rationale behind rule in Louisiana

2005Indeed, to hold to the contrary "would require a client to hire a backup lawyer to continually review the work of the primary lawyer." Gill v. Warren , 751 S.W.2d 33 (Ky.App.1988); See also Olivier v. National Union Fire Insurance Co., 499 So.2d 1330, 1337 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1986) (contrary holding would allow attorney to defeat malpractice claim by using appeal process to continue relationship until prescription has run).

2000Indeed, to hold to the contrary "would require a client to hire a backup lawyer to continually review the work of the primary lawyer." Gill v. Warren, 751 S.W.2d 33 (Ky.App.1988); See also Olivier v. National Union Fire Insurance Co., 499 So.2d 1330, 1337 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1986) (contrary holding would allow attorney to defeat malpractice claim by using appeal process to continue relationship until prescription has run).

2013State v. Brown, 318 So.2d 24 (La.1975); State v. Gay, 616 So.2d 1290 (La.App. 2 Cir.1993), writ denied, 624 So.2d 1223 (La.1993).

2012State v. Brown, 318 So.2d 24 (La.1975); State v. Gay, 616 So.2d 1290 (La.App. 2 Cir.1993), writ denied, 624 So.2d 1223 (La.1993). | ^However, such evidence may be admitted by certain statutory and jurisprudential exceptions to the exclusionary rule when it tends to prove a material issue and has independent relevance other than showing that the defendant is of bad character.

2013State v. Brown, 318 So.2d 24 (La.1975); State v. Gay, 616 So.2d 1290 (La.App. 2 Cir.1993), writ denied, 624 So.2d 1223 (La.1993).

2012State v. Brown, 318 So.2d 24 (La.1975); State v. Gay, 616 So.2d 1290 (La.App. 2 Cir.1993), writ denied, 624 So.2d 1223 (La.1993). | ^However, such evidence may be admitted by certain statutory and jurisprudential exceptions to the exclusionary rule when it tends to prove a material issue and has independent relevance other than showing that the defendant is of bad character.

2013Explaining the rationale behind this rule, the Supreme Court stated: It would be unfair to permit the defendant to have the advantage of the possibility that a lesser “compromise” verdict will be returned (as opposed to being convicted of the offense charged) and then to raise the complaint for the first time on appeal, that the evidence did not support the responsive verdict to which he failed to object.' Blackburn, 424 So.2d at 251-52 .

2010Blackburn, supra, 424 So.2d at 251-252 .

2013State v. Brown, 318 So.2d 24 (La.1975); State v. Gay, 616 So.2d 1290 (La.App. 2 Cir.1993), writ denied, 624 So.2d 1223 (La.1993).

2012State v. Brown, 318 So.2d 24 (La.1975); State v. Gay, 616 So.2d 1290 (La.App. 2 Cir.1993), writ denied, 624 So.2d 1223 (La.1993). | ^However, such evidence may be admitted by certain statutory and jurisprudential exceptions to the exclusionary rule when it tends to prove a material issue and has independent relevance other than showing that the defendant is of bad character.

2009The rationale behind this rule being that a "[d]efendant ought not to be placed in the position of having to consent, or perhaps prejudice the jury by withholding consent." State v. Luquette, 275 So.2d at 400 , citing State v. Craighead, supra .

1996The rationale behind this rule being that a "[d]efendant ought not to be placed in the position of having to consent, or perhaps prejudice the jury by withholding consent." State v. Luquette, 275 So.2d at 400 , citing State v. Craighead, supra .

2024Id.

2013In response to Ms. Brown’s argument that attempted cruelty to a juvenile is not a legally cognizable responsive verdict, the State cites State v. Freeman, 409 So.2d 581 (La.1982), in which the Supreme Court upheld the verdict of attempted cruelty to a juvenile after the defendant claimed that no such verdict exists.

2007Abel v. United States, 362 U.S. 217 , 80 S.Ct. 683 , 4 L.Ed.2d 668 (1960); State v. Dobard, 01-2629 (La.6/21/02), 824 So.2d 1127 .

2007Abel v. United States, 362 U.S. 217 , 80 S.Ct. 683 , 4 L.Ed.2d 668 (1960); State v. Dobard, 01-2629 (La.6/21/02), 824 So.2d 1127 .

2007Abel v. United States, 362 U.S. 217 , 80 S.Ct. 683 , 4 L.Ed.2d 668 (1960); State v. Dobard, 01-2629 (La.6/21/02), 824 So.2d 1127 .

2003The rationale behind this rule was that “[i]f it [can] be said that the work activities of the injured employee [have] no direct concern with navigation or commerce, it [is] ‘local’ and therefore the State laws [are] applicable.” Id., citing M.

1999Id.

1998Taylor , 93-2201 at p. 32, 669 So.2d at 381 .

1997The Lima court also explained that the rationale behind this rule is that "[a] plaintiff cannot justly be held to be `sleeping on his rights' when he is relying upon a honored fiduciary relationship." Lima, 595 So.2d at 630 citing Note, Civil Procedure— Statute of Limitation Accrual in Attorney Malpractice Actions: Thorpe v. DeMent, 20 Wake Forest L.Rev. 1017, 1038 (1984).

1996See also: Franklin v. Paul Dupuis & Associates, 543 So.2d 970 (La.App. 3 Cir.1989), writ den. 545 So.2d 1042 (La.1989).

1996See also: Franklin v. Paul Dupuis & Associates, 543 So.2d 970 (La.App. 3 Cir.1989), writ den. 545 So.2d 1042 (La.1989).

1995The rationale behind this requirement is reflected in the policy behind the concept of garde: `[T]he owner of a thing is in a better position than the innocent victim to guard against the unreasonable risks of structural defects in the thing he owns which arise before he transfers possession of it to another.' Ross, 502 So.2d at 1032 .

1992The rationale behind the rule of sui generis tax laws is clearly stated in Dupre v. City of Opelousas, 161 La. at 275 , 108 So. at 480 -481: After the taxes have been collected, it would be unreasonable, if not disastrous, to permit a taxpayer, after he has made payment, without having been coerced to do so, to recover the taxes paid by him, on the ground that the levy was unconstitutional or illegal.

1992The rationale behind the rule of sui generis tax laws is clearly stated in Dupre v. City of Opelousas, 161 La. at 275 , 108 So. at 480 -481: After the taxes have been collected, it would be unreasonable, if not disastrous, to permit a taxpayer, after he has made payment, without having been coerced to do so, to recover the taxes paid by him, on the ground that the levy was unconstitutional or illegal.

1989The rationale behind this principle of review is based not only on the trial court's better capacity to evaluate live witnesses *1243 but also "upon the proper allocation of trial and appellate functions between the respective courts." Id. at 826 quoting Canter v. Koehring Co., 283 So.2d 716, 724 (La.1973).

1985The rationale behind the rule was explained in Calvert v. Simon, 311 So.2d 13 (La.App. 2nd Cir.1975) at p. 17: Louisiana law permits recovery by a party damaged by libelous statements made without probable cause and with malice by another party in a judicial proceeding, but consistent with orderly procedure and the concept of unhampered expression in the course of litigation, requires the party claiming such damage to await the determination of the original proceeding.

1984However, after a review of this decision we are of the opinion that the ruling in Suhor, supra is controlling. 2 Clearly the rationale behind the doctrine, humane consideration for the plight of an impecunious defendant, is no less served in the area of special damages.

1981Gonzales, supra. Kevin Naquin, the assistant manager, testified he was stocking a shelf down the aisle from where the accident occurred.

1980Considering this policy, we reiterate that: "Because most juveniles are not mature enough to understand their rights and are not competent to exercise them, the concepts of fundamental fairness embodied in the Declaration of Rights of our constitution require that juveniles not be permitted to waive constitutional rights on their own." Dino, supra, at 594 . [Footnotes omitted].