sustained exception in Louisiana

2015(See Berry v. Volunteers of America, Inc., et al, No. 08-184 (La.App. 5 Cir. 9/16/08) , 996 So.2d 299 ). 4 After the Parish re-zoned their property, as set forth above, on January 7, 2008 the Berrys filed a second suit against the Parish (No. 654-717), challenging the moratorium and re-zoning of their property as being violative of their constitutional rights under their right to contract, as amounting to a talcing of their property without just compensation, and as being violative of the Louisiana Constitution’s prohibition against age discrimination.

2011(See Berry v. Volunteers of America, Inc., et al, No. 08-184 (La.App. 5 Cir. 9/16/08) , 996 So.2d 299 .) After the Parish re-zoned their property, as set forth above, on January 7, 2008 the Berrys filed a second suit against the Parish (No. 654-717), challenging the moratorium and re-zoning of their property as being violative of their constitutional rights under their right to contract, as amounting to a taking of their property without just compensation, and as being violative of the Louisiana Constitution’s prohibition against age discrimination.

2006After allowing argument on those issues, the trial court found that the amendments brought the Ordinance into compliance with this court’s decision in Bellsouth, 919 So.2d 844 , and denied the motion for judgment.

2006After allowing argument on those issues, the trial court found that the amendments brought the Ordinance into compliance with this court's decision in Bellsouth, 919 So.2d 844 , and denied the motion for judgment.

1999Upon review of a sustained exception of no cause of action, the reviewer "should subject the case to de novo review because the exception raises a question of law and the lower court's decision is based only on the sufficiency of the petition." City of New Orleans v. Board of Comm'rs, 93-0690 (La.7/5/94); 640 So.2d 237, 253 .

1998Upon review of a sustained exception of no cause of action, the reviewer "should subject the case to de novo review because the exception raises a question of law and the lower court's decision is based only on the sufficiency of the petition." City of New Orleans v. Board of Comm'rs, 93-0690 (La.7/5/94); 640 So.2d 237, 238 .

1999In Sheets v. Sheets, supra , the matrimonial domicile was in Ascension Parish.

1999In Sheets v. Sheets, supra, the matrimonial domicile was in Ascension Parish.

2020Id.

2020Dauterive, 246 So.3d at 804 .

2018Incidental or inadvertent references to post-arrest silence do not mandate a mistrial or reversal where "[t]he trial as a whole was fairly conducted, the proof of guilt is strong, and the State made no use of the silence for impeachment of the defendant's custodial silence." State v. Smith , 336 So.2d 867 , 868-70 (La. 1976). 5 Given that the trial as a whole was fairly conducted, the proof of Defendant's guilt is strong, the State made no use of the silence for impeachment, the court sustained the defense's objections, and the court provided a cautionary instruction, we find the error did not

2017The trial court found instead that under the holding of Nunez v. Wainoco Oil & Gas, Co., 488 So.2d 955 (La. 1986), the action asserted by the plaintiffs and intervenors was one for subsurface trespass. .

2016The trial court sustained an exception of no cause of action, and the court of appeal affirmed, holding that the employer “had no duty to protect [the employee] from an intentional act committed by a co-employee after hours, off the worksite, and which did not occur in the course and scope of employment.” Kelley, 40 So.3d at 1106 .

2014However, in Orrill v. AIG, Inc., 09-0888 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/21/10) , 38 So.3d 457 , the Fourth Circuit found that the Chalona lawsuit was dismissed on October 1, 2008, after the trial court sustained an exception of lis pendens.

2012Id., 449 So.2d at 134 .

2012Id., 449 So.2d at 134 .

2011Co., 02-987 (La.App. 5th Cir.1/28/03), 837 So.2d 706 , writ denied, 2003-0969 (La.5/16/03), 843 So.2d 1138 , both discussed infra, this court sustained the exception and held: [I]n a legal malpractice action based on the failure to file documents, the proper venue is the parish where the defendant attorney’s law office is located because that is the parish where he or she handled the defense of the lawsuit and, thus, where the alleged wrongful conduct occurred.

2011Co., 02-987 (La.App. 5th Cir. 1/28/03), 837 So.2d 706 , writ denied, 2003-0969 (La.5/16/03), 843 So.2d 1138 , both discussed infra, this court sustained the exception and held: [I]n a legal malpractice action based on the failure to file documents, the proper venue is the parish where the defendant attorney's law office is located because that is the parish where he or she handled the defense of the lawsuit and, thus, where the alleged wrongful conduct occurred.

2011Co., 02-987 (La.App. 5th Cir.1/28/03), 837 So.2d 706 , writ denied, 2003-0969 (La.5/16/03), 843 So.2d 1138 , both discussed infra, this court sustained the exception and held: [I]n a legal malpractice action based on the failure to file documents, the proper venue is the parish where the defendant attorney’s law office is located because that is the parish where he or she handled the defense of the lawsuit and, thus, where the alleged wrongful conduct occurred.

2011Co., 02-987 (La.App. 5th Cir. 1/28/03), 837 So.2d 706 , writ denied, 2003-0969 (La.5/16/03), 843 So.2d 1138 , both discussed infra, this court sustained the exception and held: [I]n a legal malpractice action based on the failure to file documents, the proper venue is the parish where the defendant attorney's law office is located because that is the parish where he or she handled the defense of the lawsuit and, thus, where the alleged wrongful conduct occurred.

2010R.S. 14:34.5(B)(2). [2] This court affirmed the defendant's conviction and sentence for aggravated burglary in State v. Smith, 44,011 (La.App.2d Cir.4/8/09), 7 So.3d 855 , writ denied, 2009-1118 (La. 1/29/10), 25 So.3d 828 . [3] Due to issues with the certification of the documents for docket number 148,130, the trial court sustained the defense's objection to their introduction into evidence; they were proffered.

2010R.S. 14:34.5(B)(2). [2] This court affirmed the defendant's conviction and sentence for aggravated burglary in State v. Smith, 44,011 (La.App.2d Cir.4/8/09), 7 So.3d 855 , writ denied, 2009-1118 (La. 1/29/10), 25 So.3d 828 . [3] Due to issues with the certification of the documents for docket number 148,130, the trial court sustained the defense's objection to their introduction into evidence; they were proffered.

2007Citing the Louisiana Supreme Court’s decision in LeBreton v. Rabito, 97-2221 (La.7/8/98), 714 So.2d 1226 , the trial court concluded that La.

2006Id.

2005On appeal, plaintiffs, relying on Ledoux v. City of Baton Rouge, 99-2061 (La.2/29/00), 755 So.2d 877 , argue that their claims for compensatory time did not commence to run until they retired or were terminated.

2003State v. Pardon, 97-248, p. 12 (La.App. 5 Cir. 10/15/97), 703 So.2d 50 , 61 reaches the same conclusion: In closing argument, the prosecutor stated that Richard Betts heard Virginia Keener say, “You [the defendant] did not have to Mil him.” The trial court sustained defense counsel’s hearsay objection at that time.

2003In the present case, the trial court sustained the defense objection and admonished the jury that it, not the expert witness, remained the ultimate finder of fact. 2001-2778, p. 2, 827 So.2d at 1120-21 .

2002The supreme court explained that there was "no question that the amendment of the original judgment, which purported to reinstate a suit previously dismissed with prejudice, was one of substance, and therefore not permissible under La.Code Civ.Pro., art. 1951." Id. at 1010 .

2001In Schmidt v. Bishop , a diversity case interpreting New York law, the federal district court sustained a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, holding that the plaintiffs claim was one of clergy malpractice despite her *466 "rather fanciful characterization of the claim as `counseling malpractice.'" Id., 779 F.Supp. at 327 .

2001In Schmidt v. Bishop , a diversity case interpreting New York law, the federal district court sustained a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, holding that the plaintiffs claim was one of clergy malpractice despite her *466 "rather fanciful characterization of the claim as `counseling malpractice.'" Id., 779 F.Supp. at 327 .

2001The court noted that the basis for delaying the commencement of prescription running was not the special discovery rule set forth in La.Rev.Stat. 9:5628, but rather the continuing tort doctrine as described by this court in South Central Bell Telephone Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 418 So.2d 531 (La.1982), and as applied in the medical malpractice setting in Bellard v. Biddle, 98-1502 (La.App. 3rd Cir.3/17/99), 734 So.2d 733 . [6] The court of appeal noted the split among the circuits on the issue of whether the continuing tort doctrine applies in the medical malpractice setting as a defense against th

2001The court noted that the basis for delaying the commencement of prescription running was not the special discovery rule set forth in La.Rev.Stat. 9:5628, but rather the continuing tort doctrine as described by this court in South Central Bell Telephone Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 418 So.2d 531 (La.1982), and as applied in the medical malpractice setting in Bellard v. Biddle, 98-1502 (La.App. 3rd Cir.3/17/99), 734 So.2d 733 . [6] The court of appeal noted the split among the circuits on the issue of whether the continuing tort doctrine applies in the medical malpractice setting as a defense against th

2000After re-* viewing the entire record we find it to be totally devoid of any evidence showing that Booth is a qualified elector or registered voter, much less qualified to vote in the election for which Jefferson qualified as a candidate. |4In Hardy v. Jackson, 253 So.2d 647 (La.App. 2d Cir.1971), the court sustained an exception of no right of action where an individual bringing an election challenge was found not to be a qualified elector entitled to object to qualification of a candidate in a party primary election.