Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
15 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1942–2013 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Louisiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Abneygreen2 sentences2013This firmly-established rule prevents jurors from impeaching their verdict by disclosure of jury deliberations or even by testimony of misconduct within the jury room.” State v. Abney, 347 So.2d 498, 502 (La.1977). | Although not strictly held in criminal cases where, as explained above, there are additional constitutional considerations, in civil cases “affidavits and other testimony by jurors cannot be used as evidence to impeach a jury’s verdict.” Uriegas v. Gainsco, 94-1400 (La.App. 3 Cir. 9/13/95) , 663 So.2d 162, 170 , citing Pitts v. Bailes, 551 So.2d 1363 (La.App. 3 Cir.1989); Theriot 2005This firmly-established rule prevents jurors from impeaching their verdict by disclosure of jury deliberations or even by testimony of misconduct in the jury room." State v. Abney, 347 So.2d 498, 502 (La.1977) (citations omitted). | 3 | 4 |
Union Oil Company of California v. Touchetgreen2 sentences1966To have that effect, the acknowledgment must be coupled with the purpose and intention that it shall have that effect, and such purpose and intention must be expressed in unmistakable terms." See, also: Union Oil Company of California v. Touchet, 229 La. 316 , 86 So.2d 50, 55 (1956); Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. v. Thompson, supra. It would be illogical to assume that Odom intended to execute a ratification where the instrument executed is styled "Change of Depository" and where its tenor is toward insuring that the contemplated change of depository is properly made. 1966To have that effect, the acknowledgment must be coupled with the purpose and intention that it shall have that effect, and such purpose and intention must be expressed in unmistakable terms." See, also: Union Oil Company of California v. Touchet, 229 La. 316 , 86 So.2d 50, 55 (1956); Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. v. Thompson, supra. It would be illogical to assume that Odom intended to execute a ratification where the instrument executed is styled "Change of Depository" and where its tenor is toward insuring that the contemplated change of depository is properly made. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Pitts v. Bailes
green
2 sentences2013This firmly-established rule prevents jurors from impeaching their verdict by disclosure of jury deliberations or even by testimony of misconduct within the jury room.” State v. Abney, 347 So.2d 498, 502 (La.1977). | Although not strictly held in criminal cases where, as explained above, there are additional constitutional considerations, in civil cases “affidavits and other testimony by jurors cannot be used as evidence to impeach a jury’s verdict.” Uriegas v. Gainsco, 94-1400 (La.App. 3 Cir. 9/13/95) , 663 So.2d 162, 170 , citing Pitts v. Bailes, 551 So.2d 1363 (La.App. 3 Cir.1989); Theriot 2002Although not strictly held in criminal cases where, as explained above, there are additional constitutional considerations, in civil cases "affidavits and other testimony by jurors cannot be used as evidence to impeach a jury's verdict." Uriegas v. Gainsco, 94-1400 (La.App. 3 Cir. 9/13/95) , 663 So.2d 162, 170 , citing Pitts v. Bailes, 551 So.2d 1363 (La.App. 3 Cir.1989); Theriot v. Theriot, 622 So.2d 257 (La.App. 1 Cir.1993); Coleman v. Brooks, 583 So.2d 133 (La.App. 4 Cir.1991). | 2 | 2002–2013 |
Theriot v. Theriot
green
2 sentences2013This firmly-established rule prevents jurors from impeaching their verdict by disclosure of jury deliberations or even by testimony of misconduct within the jury room.” State v. Abney, 347 So.2d 498, 502 (La.1977). | Although not strictly held in criminal cases where, as explained above, there are additional constitutional considerations, in civil cases “affidavits and other testimony by jurors cannot be used as evidence to impeach a jury’s verdict.” Uriegas v. Gainsco, 94-1400 (La.App. 3 Cir. 9/13/95) , 663 So.2d 162, 170 , citing Pitts v. Bailes, 551 So.2d 1363 (La.App. 3 Cir.1989); Theriot 2002Although not strictly held in criminal cases where, as explained above, there are additional constitutional considerations, in civil cases "affidavits and other testimony by jurors cannot be used as evidence to impeach a jury's verdict." Uriegas v. Gainsco, 94-1400 (La.App. 3 Cir. 9/13/95) , 663 So.2d 162, 170 , citing Pitts v. Bailes, 551 So.2d 1363 (La.App. 3 Cir.1989); Theriot v. Theriot, 622 So.2d 257 (La.App. 1 Cir.1993); Coleman v. Brooks, 583 So.2d 133 (La.App. 4 Cir.1991). | 2 | 2002–2013 |
Coleman v. Brooks
neutral
2 sentences2013This firmly-established rule prevents jurors from impeaching their verdict by disclosure of jury deliberations or even by testimony of misconduct within the jury room.” State v. Abney, 347 So.2d 498, 502 (La.1977). | Although not strictly held in criminal cases where, as explained above, there are additional constitutional considerations, in civil cases “affidavits and other testimony by jurors cannot be used as evidence to impeach a jury’s verdict.” Uriegas v. Gainsco, 94-1400 (La.App. 3 Cir. 9/13/95) , 663 So.2d 162, 170 , citing Pitts v. Bailes, 551 So.2d 1363 (La.App. 3 Cir.1989); Theriot 2002Although not strictly held in criminal cases where, as explained above, there are additional constitutional considerations, in civil cases "affidavits and other testimony by jurors cannot be used as evidence to impeach a jury's verdict." Uriegas v. Gainsco, 94-1400 (La.App. 3 Cir. 9/13/95) , 663 So.2d 162, 170 , citing Pitts v. Bailes, 551 So.2d 1363 (La.App. 3 Cir.1989); Theriot v. Theriot, 622 So.2d 257 (La.App. 1 Cir.1993); Coleman v. Brooks, 583 So.2d 133 (La.App. 4 Cir.1991). | 2 | 2002–2013 |
Uriegas v. Gainsco
green
2 sentences2013This firmly-established rule prevents jurors from impeaching their verdict by disclosure of jury deliberations or even by testimony of misconduct within the jury room.” State v. Abney, 347 So.2d 498, 502 (La.1977). | Although not strictly held in criminal cases where, as explained above, there are additional constitutional considerations, in civil cases “affidavits and other testimony by jurors cannot be used as evidence to impeach a jury’s verdict.” Uriegas v. Gainsco, 94-1400 (La.App. 3 Cir. 9/13/95) , 663 So.2d 162, 170 , citing Pitts v. Bailes, 551 So.2d 1363 (La.App. 3 Cir.1989); Theriot 2002Although not strictly held in criminal cases where, as explained above, there are additional constitutional considerations, in civil cases "affidavits and other testimony by jurors cannot be used as evidence to impeach a jury's verdict." Uriegas v. Gainsco, 94-1400 (La.App. 3 Cir. 9/13/95) , 663 So.2d 162, 170 , citing Pitts v. Bailes, 551 So.2d 1363 (La.App. 3 Cir.1989); Theriot v. Theriot, 622 So.2d 257 (La.App. 1 Cir.1993); Coleman v. Brooks, 583 So.2d 133 (La.App. 4 Cir.1991). | 2 | 2002–2013 |
Payton v. New York
green
2 sentences2005Kirk v. Louisiana, 536 U.S. 635, 637 , 122 S.Ct. 2458, 2459 , 153 L.Ed.2d 599 (2002) (per curiam) (referencing Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 , 100 S.Ct. 1371 , 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980)). 2005Kirk v. Louisiana, 536 U.S. 635, 637 , 122 S.Ct. 2458, 2459 , 153 L.Ed.2d 599 (2002) (per curiam) (referencing Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 , 100 S.Ct. 1371 , 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980)). | 2 | 2005–2005 |
Kirk v. Louisiana
green
2 sentences2005Kirk v. Louisiana, 536 U.S. 635, 637 , 122 S.Ct. 2458, 2459 , 153 L.Ed.2d 599 (2002) (per curiam) (referencing Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 , 100 S.Ct. 1371 , 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980)). 2005Kirk v. Louisiana, 536 U.S. 635, 637 , 122 S.Ct. 2458, 2459 , 153 L.Ed.2d 599 (2002) (per curiam) (referencing Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 , 100 S.Ct. 1371 , 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980)). | 2 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Durr
green
2 sentences1991State v. Durr, 343 So.2d 1004 (La.1977). 347 So.2d at 502 . 1977State v. Durr, 343 So.2d 1004 (La. 1977). | 2 | 1977–1991 |
Achee v. Caillouet
green
2 sentences1954There was, therefore, nothing in the lease to indicate that Bremer intended to interrupt prescription.” In the case of Achee v. Caillouet, 197 La. 313 , 1 So.2d 530, 536 , this Court stated: “ * * * It is utterly inconsistent and irreconcilable with the firmly established rule that a bare acknowledgment by the landowner of the existence of the mineral rights of another in his land does not interrupt the running of prescription in the sense that the prescription begins to run anew from the date of acknowledgment. 1954There was, therefore, nothing in the lease to indicate that Bremer intended to interrupt prescription.” In the case of Achee v. Caillouet, 197 La. 313 , 1 So.2d 530, 536 , this Court stated: “ * * * It is utterly inconsistent and irreconcilable with the firmly established rule that a bare acknowledgment by the landowner of the existence of the mineral rights of another in his land does not interrupt the running of prescription in the sense that the prescription begins to run anew from the date of acknowledgment. | 2 | 1942–1954 |
Parker v. Centenary Heritage Manor
green
1 sentence2013“One reason for this rule is that if, after being discharged and mingling with the public, jurors are permitted to impeach verdicts which they have rendered, it would invite tampering with the jurors and would place it in the power of a dissatisfied or corrupt juror to destroy a verdict to which he had deliberately given his assent under the sanction of oath.” Parker v. Centenary Heritage Manor, 28,401 (La.App. 2 Cir. 6/26/96), 677 So.2d 568, 574 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Sampson
green
1 sentence1988In State v. Sampson, 498 So.2d 1145 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1986) this Court stated as follows: It is a firmly established rule of law that a judgment holding a party to a lawsuit in contempt of court is not a judgment from which an appeal may be taken. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Perniciaro v. Brinch
green
1 sentence1982Perniciaro v. Brinch, 384 So.2d 392 (La.1980). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Lewis v. Bodcaw Lumber Co.
green
2 sentences1967LSA-C.C. art. 3460; Hightower v. Maritzky, supra; Bodcaw Lumber Co. of Louisiana v. Magnolia Petroleum Co., supra; Lewis v. Bodcaw, 167 La. 1067 , 120 So. 859 (1929); Nabors Oil & Gas Co. v. Louisiana Oil Refining Co., 151 La. 361 , 91 So. 765 (1922); Munn v. Wadley, 192 La. 874 , 189 So. 561 (1939); Gueno v. Medlenka, 238 La. 1081 , 117 So.2d 817 (1960). *555 In Hightower v. Maritzky, supra, our Supreme Court said: "* * * The parties to a contract granting a servitude or real right may impose any restriction or limitation that they see fit to impose upon the use or enjoyment of the servitude 1967LSA-C.C. art. 3460; Hightower v. Maritzky, supra; Bodcaw Lumber Co. of Louisiana v. Magnolia Petroleum Co., supra; Lewis v. Bodcaw, 167 La. 1067 , 120 So. 859 (1929); Nabors Oil & Gas Co. v. Louisiana Oil Refining Co., 151 La. 361 , 91 So. 765 (1922); Munn v. Wadley, 192 La. 874 , 189 So. 561 (1939); Gueno v. Medlenka, 238 La. 1081 , 117 So.2d 817 (1960). *555 In Hightower v. Maritzky, supra, our Supreme Court said: "* * * The parties to a contract granting a servitude or real right may impose any restriction or limitation that they see fit to impose upon the use or enjoyment of the servitude | 1 | 1967–1967 |
Munn v. Wadley
neutral
2 sentences1967LSA-C.C. art. 3460; Hightower v. Maritzky, supra; Bodcaw Lumber Co. of Louisiana v. Magnolia Petroleum Co., supra; Lewis v. Bodcaw, 167 La. 1067 , 120 So. 859 (1929); Nabors Oil & Gas Co. v. Louisiana Oil Refining Co., 151 La. 361 , 91 So. 765 (1922); Munn v. Wadley, 192 La. 874 , 189 So. 561 (1939); Gueno v. Medlenka, 238 La. 1081 , 117 So.2d 817 (1960). *555 In Hightower v. Maritzky, supra, our Supreme Court said: "* * * The parties to a contract granting a servitude or real right may impose any restriction or limitation that they see fit to impose upon the use or enjoyment of the servitude 1967LSA-C.C. art. 3460; Hightower v. Maritzky, supra; Bodcaw Lumber Co. of Louisiana v. Magnolia Petroleum Co., supra; Lewis v. Bodcaw, 167 La. 1067 , 120 So. 859 (1929); Nabors Oil & Gas Co. v. Louisiana Oil Refining Co., 151 La. 361 , 91 So. 765 (1922); Munn v. Wadley, 192 La. 874 , 189 So. 561 (1939); Gueno v. Medlenka, 238 La. 1081 , 117 So.2d 817 (1960). *555 In Hightower v. Maritzky, supra, our Supreme Court said: "* * * The parties to a contract granting a servitude or real right may impose any restriction or limitation that they see fit to impose upon the use or enjoyment of the servitude | 1 | 1967–1967 |
Nabors Oil & Gas Co. v. Louisiana Oil Refining Co.
green
2 sentences1967LSA-C.C. art. 3460; Hightower v. Maritzky, supra; Bodcaw Lumber Co. of Louisiana v. Magnolia Petroleum Co., supra; Lewis v. Bodcaw, 167 La. 1067 , 120 So. 859 (1929); Nabors Oil & Gas Co. v. Louisiana Oil Refining Co., 151 La. 361 , 91 So. 765 (1922); Munn v. Wadley, 192 La. 874 , 189 So. 561 (1939); Gueno v. Medlenka, 238 La. 1081 , 117 So.2d 817 (1960). *555 In Hightower v. Maritzky, supra, our Supreme Court said: "* * * The parties to a contract granting a servitude or real right may impose any restriction or limitation that they see fit to impose upon the use or enjoyment of the servitude 1967LSA-C.C. art. 3460; Hightower v. Maritzky, supra; Bodcaw Lumber Co. of Louisiana v. Magnolia Petroleum Co., supra; Lewis v. Bodcaw, 167 La. 1067 , 120 So. 859 (1929); Nabors Oil & Gas Co. v. Louisiana Oil Refining Co., 151 La. 361 , 91 So. 765 (1922); Munn v. Wadley, 192 La. 874 , 189 So. 561 (1939); Gueno v. Medlenka, 238 La. 1081 , 117 So.2d 817 (1960). *555 In Hightower v. Maritzky, supra, our Supreme Court said: "* * * The parties to a contract granting a servitude or real right may impose any restriction or limitation that they see fit to impose upon the use or enjoyment of the servitude | 1 | 1967–1967 |
Gueno v. Medlenka
green
2 sentences1967LSA-C.C. art. 3460; Hightower v. Maritzky, supra; Bodcaw Lumber Co. of Louisiana v. Magnolia Petroleum Co., supra; Lewis v. Bodcaw, 167 La. 1067 , 120 So. 859 (1929); Nabors Oil & Gas Co. v. Louisiana Oil Refining Co., 151 La. 361 , 91 So. 765 (1922); Munn v. Wadley, 192 La. 874 , 189 So. 561 (1939); Gueno v. Medlenka, 238 La. 1081 , 117 So.2d 817 (1960). *555 In Hightower v. Maritzky, supra, our Supreme Court said: "* * * The parties to a contract granting a servitude or real right may impose any restriction or limitation that they see fit to impose upon the use or enjoyment of the servitude 1967LSA-C.C. art. 3460; Hightower v. Maritzky, supra; Bodcaw Lumber Co. of Louisiana v. Magnolia Petroleum Co., supra; Lewis v. Bodcaw, 167 La. 1067 , 120 So. 859 (1929); Nabors Oil & Gas Co. v. Louisiana Oil Refining Co., 151 La. 361 , 91 So. 765 (1922); Munn v. Wadley, 192 La. 874 , 189 So. 561 (1939); Gueno v. Medlenka, 238 La. 1081 , 117 So.2d 817 (1960). *555 In Hightower v. Maritzky, supra, our Supreme Court said: "* * * The parties to a contract granting a servitude or real right may impose any restriction or limitation that they see fit to impose upon the use or enjoyment of the servitude | 1 | 1967–1967 |
Dane v. Canal Insurance
neutral
1 sentence1960Dane v. Canal Insurance Company, La.App., 116 So.2d 359 , and the authorities therein cited. | 1 | 1960–1960 |
State v. Standard Oil Co. of Louisiana
green
2 sentences1942The following pertinent statement was made in the case of State v. Standard Oil Co. of Louisiana, 188 La. 978, 1010 , 178 So. 601 , 611: “‘It is a firmly established principle of law that the constitutionality of a statute may not be attacked by one whose rights are not affected by the operation of the statute. 1942The following pertinent statement was made in the case of State v. Standard Oil Co. of Louisiana, 188 La. 978, 1010 , 178 So. 601 , 611: “‘It is a firmly established principle of law that the constitutionality of a statute may not be attacked by one whose rights are not affected by the operation of the statute. | 1 | 1942–1942 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.