harsh rule in Louisiana

1994The alternative procedure of submission to the Attorney General `merely gives the covered State a rapid method of rendering a new state election law enforceable.' Allen v. State Board of Elections, 393 U.S. [544 ] at 549 , 89 S.Ct. [817 ] at 823 , 22 L.Ed.2d 1 (Emphasis added) (citation omitted) And Mr. Justice Powell, dissenting in the same case, refers to the harsh requirement of § 5 that a State `submit its legislation for advance review' and, in a footnote, quotes Mr. Justice Black's reference to ` . . . the power vested in federal officials under § 5 of the Act to veto state laws in advan

1994The alternative procedure of submission to the Attorney General `merely gives the covered State a rapid method of rendering a new state election law enforceable.' Allen v. State Board of Elections, 393 U.S. [544 ] at 549 , 89 S.Ct. [817 ] at 823 , 22 L.Ed.2d 1 (Emphasis added) (citation omitted) And Mr. Justice Powell, dissenting in the same case, refers to the harsh requirement of § 5 that a State `submit its legislation for advance review' and, in a footnote, quotes Mr. Justice Black's reference to ` . . . the power vested in federal officials under § 5 of the Act to veto state laws in advan

1994The alternative procedure of submission to the Attorney General `merely gives the covered State a rapid method of rendering a new state election law enforceable.' Allen v. State Board of Elections, 393 U.S. [544 ] at 549 , 89 S.Ct. [817 ] at 823 , 22 L.Ed.2d 1 (Emphasis added) (citation omitted) And Mr. Justice Powell, dissenting in the same case, refers to the harsh requirement of § 5 that a State `submit its legislation for advance review' and, in a footnote, quotes Mr. Justice Black's reference to ` . . . the power vested in federal officials under § 5 of the Act to veto state laws in advan

1987Co. v. Wilson and Co., Inc., 682 F.2d 1227 (7 Cir.1982), this is a harsh rule.

1987Towns, supra. In summary, we cannot find that the trier of fact was clearly wrong in allocating fault in this instance 75 and 25 percent.

1987As the 3rd Circuit observed in Deshotel v. South Louisiana Contractors, Inc., 487 So.2d 789 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1986): “Article 1154 is a liberal rule which allows the trial court to ameliorate the harsh rule of strict pleading under appropriate circumstances.

1974It is indeed a harsh rule when an employee is denied recovery for injuries received and is charged with the assumption of the risk where an employer is advised of a danger and he (employer) has the capacity and ability to remedy that hazard but fails to do so. *369 The option of termination of employment by the employee has been held to be an unreasonable alternative in Chaney v. Brupbacher, 242 So.2d 627 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1970).

1973State v. Richey, supra, cited State v. Smith, 216 La. 1041 , 45 So.2d 617 , from which it quoted the following language: "Moreover, hypothetical questions and questions of law are not permitted in the examination of jurors which call for a pre-judgment of any supposed case on the facts." See also State v. Henry, 197 La. 999 , 3 So.2d 104 .

1973State v. Richey, supra, cited State v. Smith, 216 La. 1041 , 45 So.2d 617 , from which it quoted the following language: "Moreover, hypothetical questions and questions of law are not permitted in the examination of jurors which call for a pre-judgment of any supposed case on the facts." See also State v. Henry, 197 La. 999 , 3 So.2d 104 .

1973Ann. 798 , 15 So. 98 ; State v. Stephens, 116 La. 36 , 40 So. 523 . *499 In the case at hand we again apply a harsh standard to the defendant and a lenient standard to the State when voir dire examination involves hypothetical questions by the State calling for pre-judgment of the guilt or innocence of the defendant.

1973Ann. 798 , 15 So. 98 ; State v. Stephens, 116 La. 36 , 40 So. 523 . *499 In the case at hand we again apply a harsh standard to the defendant and a lenient standard to the State when voir dire examination involves hypothetical questions by the State calling for pre-judgment of the guilt or innocence of the defendant.

1973State v. Richey, supra, cited State v. Smith, 216 La. 1041 , 45 So.2d 617 , from which it quoted the following language: "Moreover, hypothetical questions and questions of law are not permitted in the examination of jurors which call for a pre-judgment of any supposed case on the facts." See also State v. Henry, 197 La. 999 , 3 So.2d 104 .

1973State v. Richey, supra, cited State v. Smith, 216 La. 1041 , 45 So.2d 617 , from which it quoted the following language: "Moreover, hypothetical questions and questions of law are not permitted in the examination of jurors which call for a pre-judgment of any supposed case on the facts." See also State v. Henry, 197 La. 999 , 3 So.2d 104 .

1973Succession of Viosca, La.App., 202 So.2d 511 ; Perniciaro v. Travelers, above.

1967Co. v. Underwood, (5 U.S. Cir. Ct. of Appeals) 281 F. 891 , the Court said: “That the consignee cannot accept delivery without incurring liability for the carrier’s charges, known or unknown, supposed to be prepaid or otherwise, and no matter what the consignee’s actual relation to the shipper is, appears a harsh rule, but is seemingly established by authority.

1964The rule set forth in the Succession of Gilmore, 157 La. 130 , 102 So. 94 , that courts of this State should afford relief against judgments which were rendered under such circumstances that show the deprivation of the legal rights of the litigant who seeks relief when the enforcement of the judgment would be unconscionable and inequitable, should be controlling in the case at bar rather than the harsh rule laid down in Tell vs.

1964The rule set forth in the Succession of Gilmore, 157 La. 130 , 102 So. 94 , that courts of this State should afford relief against judgments which were rendered under such circumstances that show the deprivation of the legal rights of the litigant who seeks relief when the enforcement of the judgment would be unconscionable and inequitable, should be controlling in the case at bar rather than the harsh rule laid down in Tell vs.

1964Senac [ 122 La. 1040 ], 48 So. 448 .

1964Senac [ 122 La. 1040 ], 48 So. 448 .

1961Harvey v. Richard, 200 La. 97 , 7 So.2d 674 ; Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. v. Thompson, 222 La. 868 , 64 So.2d 202 ; Eaton v. Eaton, 227 La. 992 , 81 So.2d 371 ; Hayward v. Carolina Ins.

1961Harvey v. Richard, 200 La. 97 , 7 So.2d 674 ; Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. v. Thompson, 222 La. 868 , 64 So.2d 202 ; Eaton v. Eaton, 227 La. 992 , 81 So.2d 371 ; Hayward v. Carolina Ins.

1961Harvey v. Richard, 200 La. 97 , 7 So.2d 674 ; Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. v. Thompson, 222 La. 868 , 64 So.2d 202 ; Eaton v. Eaton, 227 La. 992 , 81 So.2d 371 ; Hayward v. Carolina Ins.

1961Harvey v. Richard, 200 La. 97 , 7 So.2d 674 ; Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. v. Thompson, 222 La. 868 , 64 So.2d 202 ; Eaton v. Eaton, 227 La. 992 , 81 So.2d 371 ; Hayward v. Carolina Ins.

1961Harvey v. Richard, 200 La. 97 , 7 So.2d 674 ; Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. v. Thompson, 222 La. 868 , 64 So.2d 202 ; Eaton v. Eaton, 227 La. 992 , 81 So.2d 371 ; Hayward v. Carolina Ins.

1961Harvey v. Richard, 200 La. 97 , 7 So.2d 674 ; Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. v. Thompson, 222 La. 868 , 64 So.2d 202 ; Eaton v. Eaton, 227 La. 992 , 81 So.2d 371 ; Hayward v. Carolina Ins.

1940In this connection, it is apropos to meditate upon the following statement made by this court in McQueen v. Tremont Lumber Company, 1S1 So. 683, 686, viz.: “It is a harsh rule which excludes from employment the servant who, for a period of many years, has proved his fidelity to duty, because, forsooth, it is known that eventually he will become disabled, from known physical defects, to carry on.” Plaintiff contends that his case falls within the pronouncements of the courts in the following cases, viz.: McMullen v. Louisiana Central Lumber Co., 2 La.App. 773 ; Id., 3 La.App. 562 ; Becton v. De

1940In this connection, it is apropos to meditate upon the following statement made by this court in McQueen v. Tremont Lumber Company, 1S1 So. 683, 686, viz.: “It is a harsh rule which excludes from employment the servant who, for a period of many years, has proved his fidelity to duty, because, forsooth, it is known that eventually he will become disabled, from known physical defects, to carry on.” Plaintiff contends that his case falls within the pronouncements of the courts in the following cases, viz.: McMullen v. Louisiana Central Lumber Co., 2 La.App. 773 ; Id., 3 La.App. 562 ; Becton v. De

1940In this connection, it is apropos to meditate upon the following statement made by this court in McQueen v. Tremont Lumber Company, 1S1 So. 683, 686, viz.: “It is a harsh rule which excludes from employment the servant who, for a period of many years, has proved his fidelity to duty, because, forsooth, it is known that eventually he will become disabled, from known physical defects, to carry on.” Plaintiff contends that his case falls within the pronouncements of the courts in the following cases, viz.: McMullen v. Louisiana Central Lumber Co., 2 La.App. 773 ; Id., 3 La.App. 562 ; Becton v. De

1940In this connection, it is apropos to meditate upon the following statement made by this court in McQueen v. Tremont Lumber Company, 1S1 So. 683, 686, viz.: “It is a harsh rule which excludes from employment the servant who, for a period of many years, has proved his fidelity to duty, because, forsooth, it is known that eventually he will become disabled, from known physical defects, to carry on.” Plaintiff contends that his case falls within the pronouncements of the courts in the following cases, viz.: McMullen v. Louisiana Central Lumber Co., 2 La.App. 773 ; Id., 3 La.App. 562 ; Becton v. De

1940In this connection, it is apropos to meditate upon the following statement made by this court in McQueen v. Tremont Lumber Company, 1S1 So. 683, 686, viz.: “It is a harsh rule which excludes from employment the servant who, for a period of many years, has proved his fidelity to duty, because, forsooth, it is known that eventually he will become disabled, from known physical defects, to carry on.” Plaintiff contends that his case falls within the pronouncements of the courts in the following cases, viz.: McMullen v. Louisiana Central Lumber Co., 2 La.App. 773 ; Id., 3 La.App. 562 ; Becton v. De

1940In this connection, it is apropos to meditate upon the following statement made by this court in McQueen v. Tremont Lumber Company, 1S1 So. 683, 686, viz.: “It is a harsh rule which excludes from employment the servant who, for a period of many years, has proved his fidelity to duty, because, forsooth, it is known that eventually he will become disabled, from known physical defects, to carry on.” Plaintiff contends that his case falls within the pronouncements of the courts in the following cases, viz.: McMullen v. Louisiana Central Lumber Co., 2 La.App. 773 ; Id., 3 La.App. 562 ; Becton v. De

1940In this connection, it is apropos to meditate upon the following statement made by this court in McQueen v. Tremont Lumber Company, 1S1 So. 683, 686, viz.: “It is a harsh rule which excludes from employment the servant who, for a period of many years, has proved his fidelity to duty, because, forsooth, it is known that eventually he will become disabled, from known physical defects, to carry on.” Plaintiff contends that his case falls within the pronouncements of the courts in the following cases, viz.: McMullen v. Louisiana Central Lumber Co., 2 La.App. 773 ; Id., 3 La.App. 562 ; Becton v. De

1940In this connection, it is apropos to meditate upon the following statement made by this court in McQueen v. Tremont Lumber Company, 1S1 So. 683, 686, viz.: “It is a harsh rule which excludes from employment the servant who, for a period of many years, has proved his fidelity to duty, because, forsooth, it is known that eventually he will become disabled, from known physical defects, to carry on.” Plaintiff contends that his case falls within the pronouncements of the courts in the following cases, viz.: McMullen v. Louisiana Central Lumber Co., 2 La.App. 773 ; Id., 3 La.App. 562 ; Becton v. De

1940In this connection, it is apropos to meditate upon the following statement made by this court in McQueen v. Tremont Lumber Company, 1S1 So. 683, 686, viz.: “It is a harsh rule which excludes from employment the servant who, for a period of many years, has proved his fidelity to duty, because, forsooth, it is known that eventually he will become disabled, from known physical defects, to carry on.” Plaintiff contends that his case falls within the pronouncements of the courts in the following cases, viz.: McMullen v. Louisiana Central Lumber Co., 2 La.App. 773 ; Id., 3 La.App. 562 ; Becton v. De

1940In this connection, it is apropos to meditate upon the following statement made by this court in McQueen v. Tremont Lumber Company, 1S1 So. 683, 686, viz.: “It is a harsh rule which excludes from employment the servant who, for a period of many years, has proved his fidelity to duty, because, forsooth, it is known that eventually he will become disabled, from known physical defects, to carry on.” Plaintiff contends that his case falls within the pronouncements of the courts in the following cases, viz.: McMullen v. Louisiana Central Lumber Co., 2 La.App. 773 ; Id., 3 La.App. 562 ; Becton v. De

1940In this connection, it is apropos to meditate upon the following statement made by this court in McQueen v. Tremont Lumber Company, 1S1 So. 683, 686, viz.: “It is a harsh rule which excludes from employment the servant who, for a period of many years, has proved his fidelity to duty, because, forsooth, it is known that eventually he will become disabled, from known physical defects, to carry on.” Plaintiff contends that his case falls within the pronouncements of the courts in the following cases, viz.: McMullen v. Louisiana Central Lumber Co., 2 La.App. 773 ; Id., 3 La.App. 562 ; Becton v. De

1940In this connection, it is apropos to meditate upon the following statement made by this court in McQueen v. Tremont Lumber Company, 1S1 So. 683, 686, viz.: “It is a harsh rule which excludes from employment the servant who, for a period of many years, has proved his fidelity to duty, because, forsooth, it is known that eventually he will become disabled, from known physical defects, to carry on.” Plaintiff contends that his case falls within the pronouncements of the courts in the following cases, viz.: McMullen v. Louisiana Central Lumber Co., 2 La.App. 773 ; Id., 3 La.App. 562 ; Becton v. De

1940In this connection, it is apropos to meditate upon the following statement made by this court in McQueen v. Tremont Lumber Company, 1S1 So. 683, 686, viz.: “It is a harsh rule which excludes from employment the servant who, for a period of many years, has proved his fidelity to duty, because, forsooth, it is known that eventually he will become disabled, from known physical defects, to carry on.” Plaintiff contends that his case falls within the pronouncements of the courts in the following cases, viz.: McMullen v. Louisiana Central Lumber Co., 2 La.App. 773 ; Id., 3 La.App. 562 ; Becton v. De