exceptions to the general rule in Louisiana

1977However, while defendant acknowledges the general rule and its exceptions, he argues that Barnard v. Henderson, 514 F.2d 744 (5th Cir. 1975) supports his argument that due process requires an exception to the rule under the circumstances of his case.

1976Recently in State v. White, 321 So.2d 491 (La.1975), we pointed out that the decision in Barnard v. Henderson, 514 F.2d 744 (5th Cir. 1975), was not authoritative and denied extension of pre-trial discovery in a fact situation very similar to the case at bar.

2011The exceptions to the general rule involve considerations of time limitations, id., none of which are of concern in this case.

2011The exceptions to the general rule involve considerations of time limitations, id., none of which are of concern in this case.

2008Chrysler Credit Corporation v. Harris, 417 So.2d 1370, 1372-73 (La.App. 4 Cir.1982). [4] For example, in Chaisson v. Domingue, 372 So.2d 1225 (La.1979), [5] where it was undisputed that the teacher-plaintiff had been injured while attending a school band concert, the Supreme Court held that despite the fact that counter-affidavits had not been submitted, summary judgment was not appropriate because it was unclear whether the moving party, her professional liability insurer, was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

2005Walker v. Milton, 263 La. at 560-61 , 268 So.2d at 655-56 . *4 The Code article explains the exceptions to the general rule imposing vicarious liability on employers.

2005Walker v. Milton, 263 La. at 560-61 , 268 So.2d at 655-56 . *4 The Code article explains the exceptions to the general rule imposing vicarious liability on employers.

2000App. 3 Cir. 10/5/94); 645 So.2d 1177, 1180 , writ denied, 95-0123 (La.3/10/95); 650 So.2d 1186 , explains the exceptions to the general rule: The jurisprudence has outlined three exceptions to the above rule.

2000App. 3 Cir. 10/5/94); 645 So.2d 1177, 1180 , writ denied, 95-0123 (La.3/10/95); 650 So.2d 1186 , explains the exceptions to the general rule: The jurisprudence has outlined three exceptions to the above rule.

1989In his brief, defendant cites the case of State v. Wilkerson, 367 So.2d 319 (La. 1979), for the proposition that Hutchinson did not have the authority to consent to a search of defendant's luggage contained within the trunk of the automobile.

1982The exceptions to the general rule, however, “all stand for the principle that counter-affidavits need not be filed by the party opposing summary judgment if the motion for summary judgment has not been properly made.” Harris Mortgage Corporation v. Johnson, 383 So.2d 801 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1980).

1982As an example, in Blount v. Exxon Corporation, 395 So.2d 355 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1981), the First Circuit found that the lower court erred in granting summary judgment when affidavits filed by Exxon, the moving party and the only one to file affidavits, failed to establish there was not a genuine issue of material fact.

1977State v. Woodruff, 281 So.2d 95 (La.1973)." None of the exceptions to the general rule are relevant here.

1976Recently in State v. White, 321 So.2d 491 (La.1975), we pointed out that the decision in Barnard v. Henderson, 514 F.2d 744 (5th Cir. 1975), was not authoritative and denied extension of pre-trial discovery in a fact situation very similar to the case at bar.

1973The majority discusses at some length the exceptions to the general rule that the value of property expropriated should be fixed on the basis of its value at the time of the taking but not as enhanced by the purpose of the taking as recited in State, Through Department of Highways v. Trippeer Realty Corporation, 276 So.2d 315 (La.App.1973).

1970The present suit does not come within any of the exceptions to the general rule, that the doctrine of the commonlaw courts, that res judicata includes not only everything pleaded in a cause but even that which might have been pleaded, does not prevail in Louisiana.’ See Hope v. Madison, [ 194 La. 337 , 193 So. 666 ] supra. Hence, it is plain that this suit, not being a petitory action for a suit for a partition or one for an injunction against the execution of a judgment or a sale under executory process, comes within the general rule that res adjudicata cannot apply when the demand is not the

1970The present suit does not come within any of the exceptions to the general rule, that the doctrine of the commonlaw courts, that res judicata includes not only everything pleaded in a cause but even that which might have been pleaded, does not prevail in Louisiana.’ See Hope v. Madison, [ 194 La. 337 , 193 So. 666 ] supra. Hence, it is plain that this suit, not being a petitory action for a suit for a partition or one for an injunction against the execution of a judgment or a sale under executory process, comes within the general rule that res adjudicata cannot apply when the demand is not the

1968In the Taylor case we also recognized the exceptions to the general rule cited in Hill v. Knight, 163 So. 727 (La.App.2d Cir. 1935), that no hard and fast rule can be laid down in these “rear-end” situations. ' Each case must be decided according to its own peculiar conditions.

1968In the Hill case the court said: “We recognize and approve the rule of law that a following driver should drive at such a speed and maintain such an interval that he can avoid collision with the leading car, under circumstances which should reasonably be anticipated by him. * * * ” 163 So. at 729 .

1967See, State v. Maney, 242 La. 223 , 135 So.2d 473 ; Cf. State v. Oliver, 247 La. 729 , 174 So.2d 509 ; State v. Evans (Butler), 249 La. 861 , 192 So.2d 103 ; State v. Reese, 250 La. 151 , 194 So.2d 729 ; State v. Richard, 245 La. 465 , 158 So.2d 828 .

1967See, State v. Maney, 242 La. 223 , 135 So.2d 473 ; Cf. State v. Oliver, 247 La. 729 , 174 So.2d 509 ; State v. Evans (Butler), 249 La. 861 , 192 So.2d 103 ; State v. Reese, 250 La. 151 , 194 So.2d 729 ; State v. Richard, 245 La. 465 , 158 So.2d 828 .

1967See, State v. Maney, 242 La. 223 , 135 So.2d 473 ; Cf. State v. Oliver, 247 La. 729 , 174 So.2d 509 ; State v. Evans (Butler), 249 La. 861 , 192 So.2d 103 ; State v. Reese, 250 La. 151 , 194 So.2d 729 ; State v. Richard, 245 La. 465 , 158 So.2d 828 .

1967See, State v. Maney, 242 La. 223 , 135 So.2d 473 ; Cf. State v. Oliver, 247 La. 729 , 174 So.2d 509 ; State v. Evans (Butler), 249 La. 861 , 192 So.2d 103 ; State v. Reese, 250 La. 151 , 194 So.2d 729 ; State v. Richard, 245 La. 465 , 158 So.2d 828 .

1967See, State v. Maney, 242 La. 223 , 135 So.2d 473 ; Cf. State v. Oliver, 247 La. 729 , 174 So.2d 509 ; State v. Evans (Butler), 249 La. 861 , 192 So.2d 103 ; State v. Reese, 250 La. 151 , 194 So.2d 729 ; State v. Richard, 245 La. 465 , 158 So.2d 828 .

1967See, State v. Maney, 242 La. 223 , 135 So.2d 473 ; Cf. State v. Oliver, 247 La. 729 , 174 So.2d 509 ; State v. Evans (Butler), 249 La. 861 , 192 So.2d 103 ; State v. Reese, 250 La. 151 , 194 So.2d 729 ; State v. Richard, 245 La. 465 , 158 So.2d 828 .

1967See, State v. Maney, 242 La. 223 , 135 So.2d 473 ; Cf. State v. Oliver, 247 La. 729 , 174 So.2d 509 ; State v. Evans (Butler), 249 La. 861 , 192 So.2d 103 ; State v. Reese, 250 La. 151 , 194 So.2d 729 ; State v. Richard, 245 La. 465 , 158 So.2d 828 .

1967See, State v. Maney, 242 La. 223 , 135 So.2d 473 ; Cf. State v. Oliver, 247 La. 729 , 174 So.2d 509 ; State v. Evans (Butler), 249 La. 861 , 192 So.2d 103 ; State v. Reese, 250 La. 151 , 194 So.2d 729 ; State v. Richard, 245 La. 465 , 158 So.2d 828 .

1956In all such instances, the paternal authority is interrupted or terminated, and likewise the paternal responsibility. "`When the law, ex proprio vigore, destroys or suspends the paternal authority over the minor, it, at the same time, destroys or suspends the paternal responsibility.' Coats v. Roberts, 35 La.Ann. 891 ." I do not dispute the validity of the rationale of the foregoing pronouncement by the Supreme Court, I am simply of the opinion that the exceptions to the general rule enumerated therein may not be applied to that kind of judgment which the majority opinion insists annihilated t

1943They take the position that there is nothing contained in the latter articles that could be made to apply to the facts as stated in plaintiffs' petition, and they contend further that the rule does not permit imagination in applying those exceptions, but that on the contrary, requires strict construction." The trial judge, in his written opinion, discusses the case of the Louisiana Oil Refining Co. v. Williams, 170 La. 218 , 127 So. 606 , which is strongly relied on by appellants to maintain their exceptions.

1943They take the position that there is nothing contained in the latter articles that could be made to apply to the facts as stated in plaintiffs' petition, and they contend further that the rule does not permit imagination in applying those exceptions, but that on the contrary, requires strict construction." The trial judge, in his written opinion, discusses the case of the Louisiana Oil Refining Co. v. Williams, 170 La. 218 , 127 So. 606 , which is strongly relied on by appellants to maintain their exceptions.

1903De Lizardi v. The New Orleans Canal & Banking Co., 25 La.