protection privilege in Louisiana

1997Sharp v. Kahn, 143 So. 514 (La.App. 1st Cir.1932).

1994Sharp v. Kahn, 143 So. 514 (La.App. 1st Cir.1932).

1970Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 , 6 S.Ct. 524 , 29 L.Ed. 746 .

1970Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 , 6 S.Ct. 524 , 29 L.Ed. 746 .

2008Willett v. Premier Bank, 97-187 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/4/97) , 696 So.2d 196 . 5 Defendants claim that the immunities granted in La.R.S. 29:735 and La.R.S. 9:2800.17 are “absolute and without exception,” 6 unless Trooper Nelson’s having fallen asleep at the wheel is found to constitute gross negligence or willful misconduct, which would void the protection of immunity offered in those statutes.

2008Willett v. Premier Bank, 97-187 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/4/97) , 696 So.2d 196 . 5 Defendants claim that the immunities granted in La.R.S. 29:735 and La.R.S. 9:2800.17 are “absolute and without exception,” 6 unless Trooper Nelson’s having fallen asleep at the wheel is found to constitute gross negligence or willful misconduct, which would void the protection of immunity offered in those statutes.

2001If Kaplan's motive was malicious in breaching the lease with Kite, then his actions were without `justification' and the final element of proof to hold Kaplan personally responsible for the breach of the lease will have been met." Kite v. Gus Kaplan, Inc., 97-57 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/18/98) , 708 So.2d 473, 481 , writ granted 98-0715, 98-0751 (La.5/13/98), 719 So.2d 58 , affirmed in part, amended in part, and reversed in part 747 So.2d 503 (La.11/17/99).

2001If Kaplan's motive was malicious in breaching the lease with Kite, then his actions were without `justification' and the final element of proof to hold Kaplan personally responsible for the breach of the lease will have been met." Kite v. Gus Kaplan, Inc., 97-57 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/18/98) , 708 So.2d 473, 481 , writ granted 98-0715, 98-0751 (La.5/13/98), 719 So.2d 58 , affirmed in part, amended in part, and reversed in part 747 So.2d 503 (La.11/17/99).

2001If Kaplan's motive was malicious in breaching the lease with Kite, then his actions were without `justification' and the final element of proof to hold Kaplan personally responsible for the breach of the lease will have been met." Kite v. Gus Kaplan, Inc., 97-57 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/18/98) , 708 So.2d 473, 481 , writ granted 98-0715, 98-0751 (La.5/13/98), 719 So.2d 58 , affirmed in part, amended in part, and reversed in part 747 So.2d 503 (La.11/17/99).

1983In Russell v. Bartlett, 139 So.2d 770 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1961), the court held that the interposition of a homestead in a sale/resale does not affect the relationship of vendor and vendee existing between the parties, where the purchaser of a dwelling sued the vendor for a redhibitory defect in the roof.

1976The reason for this privilege is evident and is well enunciated by the Supreme Court of Rhode Island in Swanson v. Spiedel Corporation, 110 R.I. 335 , 293 A.2d 307 (1972) at page 310, wherein the court states: "We believe that the public interest requires that the protection of the privilege be accorded to a communication by a former employer to a prospective employer with regard to a former employee's work characteristics where the publisher acts in good faith and has reason to believe that to speak out is necessary to protect ` * * * his own interests, or those of third persons, or certain i

1976The reason for this privilege is evident and is well enunciated by the Supreme Court of Rhode Island in Swanson v. Spiedel Corporation, 110 R.I. 335 , 293 A.2d 307 (1972) at page 310, wherein the court states: "We believe that the public interest requires that the protection of the privilege be accorded to a communication by a former employer to a prospective employer with regard to a former employee's work characteristics where the publisher acts in good faith and has reason to believe that to speak out is necessary to protect ` * * * his own interests, or those of third persons, or certain i

1976Dane v. Canal Insurance Company, 240 La. 1038 , 126 So.2d 355 (1960) and Clayton W.

1976Dane v. Canal Insurance Company, 240 La. 1038 , 126 So.2d 355 (1960) and Clayton W.

1960We held that the statute made no further extension than a grant to mineral lessees of the right to avail themselves of any procedural remedy that may be available to the owner of the realty in the protection and defense of such rights as the lessor legally conveyed; that the laws of registry are not applicable to a contract of letting and hiring within the codal articles. 5 In rejecting this contention we said that the statute is “remedial and procedural in character, and that it has not affected or changed any of the substantive rights flowing from the execution of mineral leases.” Wier v. Gr

1960We held that the statute made no further extension than a grant to mineral lessees of the right to avail themselves of any procedural remedy that may be available to the owner of the realty in the protection and defense of such rights as the lessor legally conveyed; that the laws of registry are not applicable to a contract of letting and hiring within the codal articles. 5 In rejecting this contention we said that the statute is “remedial and procedural in character, and that it has not affected or changed any of the substantive rights flowing from the execution of mineral leases.” Wier v. Gr

1955United States v. Monia, 1943, 317 U.S. 424, 427 , 63 S.Ct. 409, 410 , 87 L.Ed. 376 .

1955United States v. Monia, 1943, 317 U.S. 424, 427 , 63 S.Ct. 409, 410 , 87 L.Ed. 376 .

1955In the case of Rogers v. United States, 340 U.S. 367 , 71 S.Ct. 438, 440 , 95 L.Ed. 344 , the United States Supreme Court said; “If petitioner desired the protection of the privilege against self-incrimina tion, she was required to claim it.

1955In the case of Rogers v. United States, 340 U.S. 367 , 71 S.Ct. 438, 440 , 95 L.Ed. 344 , the United States Supreme Court said; “If petitioner desired the protection of the privilege against self-incrimina tion, she was required to claim it.

1954Reynolds v. Texas & Pacific Railway Co., 37 La.Ann. 694 ; Southern Air Transport v. Gulf Airways, Inc., 215 La. 366 , 40 So.2d. 787; Sharp v. Kahn, La.App.

1954Reynolds v. Texas & Pacific Railway Co., 37 La.Ann. 694 ; Southern Air Transport v. Gulf Airways, Inc., 215 La. 366 , 40 So.2d. 787; Sharp v. Kahn, La.App.