case involving claim in Louisiana

2018App. 5 Cir. 5/30/18), 249 So.3d 303 ), we find that the state district court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this case involving a claim for contribution.

2018App. 5 Cir. 5/30/18), 249 So.3d 303 ), we find that the state district court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this case involving a claim for contribution.

1992In assessing a claim of insufficiency of evidence to convict in a case involving a defense of insanity, a reviewing court must apply the test set out in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), to determine whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational fact finder could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that he was insane at the time of the offense.

1992In assessing a claim of insufficiency of evidence to convict in a case involving a defense of insanity, a reviewing court must apply the test set out in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), to determine whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational fact finder could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that he was insane at the time of the offense.

2018Thus, the City argues in its brief that "where, as here, the damage caused by the tortfeasor is capable of being restored , the person whose property was damaged is entitled to receive either the cost of restoration or, at his election, the difference between the value of the property before and after the harm." (Emphasis added.) However, that argument ignores the trial court's rejection of the City's position that the items claimed could be "restored." See Roman Catholic Church , 618 So.2d 874 (a case involving a claim for restoration of immovable property).

2018In O'Rourke , a case involving a claim for attorney fees and cost asserted via intervention in the main demand by the attorney discharged by his former client with cause against the successor attorney, the Supreme Court held that in cases of discharge with cause of an attorney retained on contingency, the trial court should determine the amount of the fee according to the rule set forth in Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., 373 So.2d 102 (La. 1978), i.e. , that a claimant should be exposed to no more than one contingency fee.

2015The State has also referred this court to Burge v. State, 10-2229 (La.2/11/11), 54 So.3d 1110 , a case involving a claim for wrongful conviction compensation.

2009Respondent also cites this court’s discussion of Goldstein in Marrogi v. Howard, 01-1106 (La.1/15/02), 805 So.2d 1118 , a case involving the privilege of absolute immunity for witnesses in civil litigation.

2009In explaining Goldstein , this court stated, “[T]he privilege applies to preserve candor in the attorney disciplinary system, yet complaints to the bar undertaken in malice or in abuse of process are not worthy of such protection.” Marrogi , 01-1106 at 13, 805 So.2d at 1127 .

2006In the case of Calvin v. Janbar Enterprises, Inc., XXXX-XXXX (La.App. 4 Cir. 9/24/03), 856 So.2d 88 , the parents of a minor child who was seriously injured when he was struck by a truck after exiting a bus sued the owner of the truck along with the owner's automobile insurer and its CGL insurer.

2005In State v. Holland, 544 So.2d 461, 465 (La.App. 2 Cir.1989), writ denied, 567 So.2d 93 (La.1990), a case involving a challenge of a juror for cause during trial, the appellate court stated in pertinent part: A trial judge is granted great discretion in determining whether to seat or reject a juror for cause, and such rulings will not be disturbed without a showing of an abuse of that discretion.

1992State v. Nealy, 450 So.2d 634 (La.1984); State v. Thompson, 429 So.2d 862 (La.1983); State v. Roy, 395 So.2d 664 (La.1981).

1992State v. Nealy, 450 So.2d 634 (La.1984); State v. Thompson, 429 So.2d 862 (La.1983); State v. Roy, 395 So.2d 664 (La.1981).

1992State v. Nealy, 450 So.2d 634 (La.1984); State v. Thompson, 429 So.2d 862 (La.1983); State v. Roy, 395 So.2d 664 (La.1981).

1978There, the Fourth Circuit relied upon Rogers v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, 352 U.S. 500 , 77 S.Ct. 443 , 1 L.Ed.2d 493 (1956), a case involving a claim under the Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA), in holding that it was severely limited in its scope of review of the factual findings of the jury.

1978There, the Fourth Circuit relied upon Rogers v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, 352 U.S. 500 , 77 S.Ct. 443 , 1 L.Ed.2d 493 (1956), a case involving a claim under the Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA), in holding that it was severely limited in its scope of review of the factual findings of the jury.

1978The Louisiana Supreme Court, in Trahan v. Gulf Crews, Inc., 260 La. 29 , 255 So.2d 63 (1971), a case involving a claim under the Jones Act, followed Ferdinandtsen, supra, noting that Congress made the Federal Employers Liability Act applicable to seamen when it enacted the Jones Act, and held that a limited scope of review was mandated by Rogers .

1978The Louisiana Supreme Court, in Trahan v. Gulf Crews, Inc., 260 La. 29 , 255 So.2d 63 (1971), a case involving a claim under the Jones Act, followed Ferdinandtsen, supra, noting that Congress made the Federal Employers Liability Act applicable to seamen when it enacted the Jones Act, and held that a limited scope of review was mandated by Rogers .

1978The Louisiana Supreme Court, in Trahan v. Gulf Crews, Inc., 260 La. 29 , 255 So.2d 63 (1971), a case involving a claim under the Jones Act, followed Ferdinandtsen, supra, noting that Congress made the Federal Employers Liability Act applicable to seamen when it enacted the Jones Act, and held that a limited scope of review was mandated by Rogers .

1961(Italics ours.) Having pertinency here is the decision in In re Dodge Brothers, Inc., 241 Mich. 665 , 217 N.W. 777, 779 , a case involving a claim by the State of Michigan for privilege taxes allegedly due by a foreign corporation doing business there.

1961(Italics ours.) Having pertinency here is the decision in In re Dodge Brothers, Inc., 241 Mich. 665 , 217 N.W. 777, 779 , a case involving a claim by the State of Michigan for privilege taxes allegedly due by a foreign corporation doing business there.

1960Belshe v. Gant, 235 La. 17 , 102 So.2d 477 , cited by plaintiff, is distinguishable and has no application because there was nothing to excuse the failure of the motorist in that case from observing, during his approach up to and across a very broad intersection, pedestrians who had commenced to traverse the roadway before the light had changed in favor of motor traffic thereon.

1960Belshe v. Gant, 235 La. 17 , 102 So.2d 477 , cited by plaintiff, is distinguishable and has no application because there was nothing to excuse the failure of the motorist in that case from observing, during his approach up to and across a very broad intersection, pedestrians who had commenced to traverse the roadway before the light had changed in favor of motor traffic thereon.

1954Otwell v. Vaughan, 186 La. 911 , 173 So. 527 .

1954Otwell v. Vaughan, 186 La. 911 , 173 So. 527 .

1931The appellant [sprinkler company] could easily have protected itself from loss by complying with the laws of Michigan. * * * It failed, neglected, or refused to do this, and the courts cannot relieve it from the consequences of its own neglect.” In Mississippi we find a similar decision in Peterman Construction, etc., Co. v. Blumenfeld, 156 Miss. 55 , 125 So. 548, 550 , in which the court said: “A contract made without first complying with the provisions of the above quoted statute could not be enforced in * * * this state. * * * We cannot vary the law, because our sympathy may be excited by t

1931The appellant [sprinkler company] could easily have protected itself from loss by complying with the laws of Michigan. * * * It failed, neglected, or refused to do this, and the courts cannot relieve it from the consequences of its own neglect.” In Mississippi we find a similar decision in Peterman Construction, etc., Co. v. Blumenfeld, 156 Miss. 55 , 125 So. 548, 550 , in which the court said: “A contract made without first complying with the provisions of the above quoted statute could not be enforced in * * * this state. * * * We cannot vary the law, because our sympathy may be excited by t

1931The appellant [sprinkler company] could easily have protected itself from loss by complying with the laws of Michigan. * * * It failed, neglected, or refused to do this, and the courts cannot relieve it from the consequences of its own neglect.” In Mississippi we find a similar decision in Peterman Construction, etc., Co. v. Blumenfeld, 156 Miss. 55 , 125 So. 548, 550 , in which the court said: “A contract made without first complying with the provisions of the above quoted statute could not be enforced in * * * this state. * * * We cannot vary the law, because our sympathy may be excited by t