balance principle in Louisiana

2017May, supra; Warlick v. Warlick, 27,389 (La.App. 2d Cir. 09/29/95), 661 So.2d 706 .

2012Street v. May, supra; Warlick v. Warlick, 27,389 (La.App.2d Cir.9/29/95), 661 So.2d 706 .

2024Id.

2021Id.

2012However, this “discretion must be exercised on a case by case basis and such relief should be granted only in truly exceptional cases, otherwise the purpose of res judicata would be defeated.” Id.

2006In determining the applicability of state law in a maritime context, the balance of the analysis entails "determining whether there is applicable federal legislation, identifying the `characteristic features of maritime law', and examining the scope of the uniformity requirement." Green, 593 So.2d at 639 .

2006In Green v. Industrial Helicopters, Inc., 593 So.2d 634 (La.1992), this Court held that Louisiana's strict liability provisions of La.

2001Though we agree with Ms. Wesco's starting premise, the balance of her analysis is illogical and contrary to the Louisiana Supreme Court's decision in LeBreton v. Rabito, 97-2221 (La.7/8/98), 714 So.2d 1226 , which was the basis for the trial court's June 1, 2000 judgment.

1995Cuccia v. French Market Corporation , 334 So.2d 241 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1976) where the court held that the Public Lease law applied to the French Market Corporation, a private, nonprofit corporation that derived its power to lease from the City of New Orleans.

1994Cf. Jenkins v. State, 615 So.2d 405 (La.App. 4th Cir.), writ denied, 617 So.2d 932 (La.1993) (R.S. 13:4232(1) "allow[s] the court to balance the principle of res judicata with the interests of justice").

1972However, as stated by the Supreme Court in Succession of Gilmore, 157 La. 130 , 102 So. 94 (1924): "The courts of this state will not hesitate to afford relief against judgments, irrespective of any issue of inattention or neglect, when the circumstances under which the judgment is rendered show that deprivation of legal rights of the litigant who seeks relief, and when the enforcement of the judgment would be unconscientious and inequitable." This rationale has since been followed in numerous cases, including St.

1972However, as stated by the Supreme Court in Succession of Gilmore, 157 La. 130 , 102 So. 94 (1924): "The courts of this state will not hesitate to afford relief against judgments, irrespective of any issue of inattention or neglect, when the circumstances under which the judgment is rendered show that deprivation of legal rights of the litigant who seeks relief, and when the enforcement of the judgment would be unconscientious and inequitable." This rationale has since been followed in numerous cases, including St.

1937Whatever merit there might be in the defendants’ argument with reference to this controversial question upon which the later decisions differ with earlier jurisprudence, it is sufficient to say that this Court set at rest this issue in the case of Foster & Glassell Co. v. Harrison, 173 La. 550 , 138 So. 99 , in holding that where a plaintiff proceeded to execute a judgment to the extent that it was in his favor, such action on his part was not a waiver of his right to appeal from the unfavorable portion of the judgment.

1937Whatever merit there might be in the defendants’ argument with reference to this controversial question upon which the later decisions differ with earlier jurisprudence, it is sufficient to say that this Court set at rest this issue in the case of Foster & Glassell Co. v. Harrison, 173 La. 550 , 138 So. 99 , in holding that where a plaintiff proceeded to execute a judgment to the extent that it was in his favor, such action on his part was not a waiver of his right to appeal from the unfavorable portion of the judgment.

1936The written reasons of our learned brother below contain such a clear explanation of the history and purpose of the statute and analysis of its provisions and the pertinent authorities on this issue, showing.that this court erred in its interpretation of the act in the Jones County decision, we quote the opinion with approval : “The balance of the claim is $2,562.50, There can be no doubt but that that comes directly within the purview of the jurisprudence established by the Supreme Court in the Jones County Case (In re Liquida *457 tion of Hibernia Bank & Trust Co. Jones County, Intervener (1

1936The written reasons of our learned brother below contain such a clear explanation of the history and purpose of the statute and analysis of its provisions and the pertinent authorities on this issue, showing.that this court erred in its interpretation of the act in the Jones County decision, we quote the opinion with approval : “The balance of the claim is $2,562.50, There can be no doubt but that that comes directly within the purview of the jurisprudence established by the Supreme Court in the Jones County Case (In re Liquida *457 tion of Hibernia Bank & Trust Co. Jones County, Intervener (1

1927Reagan, 2 La.

1920In accordance with their ruling in Reine vs RRd., 144 La., 750 , they transferred the case to this Court.