Third Circuit found error in Louisiana

2004To the contrary, in State v. Jackson, 98-277 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/3/99) , 734 So.2d 658 , our brethren on the Third Circuit found error when the State asked about the defendant’s arrests on re-direct examination of a police officer even h though defense counsel asked the police officer on cross- examination whether he had ever arrested defendant.

2004To the contrary, in State v. Jackson, 98-277 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/3/99) , 734 So.2d 658 , our brethren on the Third Circuit found error when the State asked about the defendant's arrests on re-direct examination of a police officer even though defense counsel asked the police officer on cross-examination *981 whether he had ever arrested defendant.

2020Id. at 48 .

2016In Gallet v. Gallet, 11-1416 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/07/12) , 86 So.3d 179, 186 , writ denied, 12-0786 (La.05/04/12), 88 So.3d 468 , the Third Circuit found no error when the trial court appointed a parenting coordinator and detailed.the parameters within which the parenting coordinator was to work.

2016In Gallet v. Gallet, 11-1416 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/07/12) , 86 So.3d 179, 186 , writ denied, 12-0786 (La.05/04/12), 88 So.3d 468 , the Third Circuit found no error when the trial court appointed a parenting coordinator and detailed.the parameters within which the parenting coordinator was to work.

2016In Gallet v. Gallet, 11-1416 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/07/12) , 86 So.3d 179, 186 , writ denied, 12-0786 (La.05/04/12), 88 So.3d 468 , the Third Circuit found no error when the trial court appointed a parenting coordinator and detailed.the parameters within which the parenting coordinator was to work.

2016The parameters were “establishing a means of communication for the parties to confer on major decisions, minor changes or clarifications as to schedules contained in the custody plan, health care management, and [the minor child’s] extracurricular activities.” Id.

2015Like the hearing officer, after a careful review of the evidence and testimony presented in the case sub judice, we recognize that neither party claims to know the actual amount of cash tips received by Ms. Dupont; however, we agree that in this case the “best evidence of her earnings' [was] the documentary evidence.” Id. \ i?The earlier decision of Deason , in which the Third Circuit found no error in the trial court’s acceptance of the plaintiffs testimony, corroborated by a co-worker, as to the amount of her average weekly tips, is not inconsistent with Dupont .

2013In affirming the trial court in Stream Family, supra, the court distinguished its decision in Acquisitions, Inc. v. Frontier Explorations, Inc., 432 So.2d 1095 (La.App. 3d Cir.1983).

2012Importantly, the McClintock court reiterated that the “right to counsel of choice must be exercised at a reasonable time, in a reason able manner and at an appropriate stage of the proceedings,” also noting that “[alb-sent a justifiable basis, there is no constitutional right to make a new choice of counsel on the very date 18trial is to begin, with the attendant necessity of a continuance and its disrupting complications.” Id. at 1233 .

2006Further, in the civil case of Green v. K-Mart Corporation, 01-675 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/18/03) , 849 So.2d 814 , aff'd in part, rev'd in part on other grounds, 03-2495 (La.5/25/04), 874 So.2d 838 , the Third Circuit found no error in the dismissal of a juror who was fifty minutes late on the fourth day of trial.

2006Further, in the civil case of Green v. K-Mart Corporation, 01-675 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/18/03) , 849 So.2d 814 , aff'd in part, rev'd in part on other grounds, 03-2495 (La.5/25/04), 874 So.2d 838 , the Third Circuit found no error in the dismissal of a juror who was fifty minutes late on the fourth day of trial.

2005By way of contrast, in Lockette v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 817 F.2d 1182 (5th Cir.1987), a Louisiana case, the plaintiffs counsel testified that the plaintiff had given him general authority to settle her case and had told him simply to “use his best judgment” in arriving at an appropriate settlement of her claim against Greyhound.

2001The court concluded that the language of the agreement "cannot act to limit [defendant] from working in any capacity with a competitor; however, it can properly operate to prohibit those actions which directly or indirectly compete with the former employer's business." Id. at p. 7-8, 741 So.2d at 95 . [6] *302 Thus, the third circuit found the clause to be enforceable against defendant.

1993Likewise, in State v. Battle, 552 So.2d 503 (La.App. 2nd Cir.1989), the court found “minimally adequate” the trial judge’s explanation to the defendant that he would be waiving the “right to have present and testify against you on these charges the people that are accusing you of the charges.” The court stated: “While finding the advisement of the right to confrontation minimally adequate in this case, we note our concern over the language used and that the court’s explanation of this right should inform the defendant of the component right to cross-examine the witnesses against him.” Battle,

1993Likewise, in State v. Battle, 552 So.2d 503 (La.App. 2nd Cir.1989), the court found “minimally adequate” the trial judge’s explanation to the defendant that he would be waiving the “right to have present and testify against you on these charges the people that are accusing you of the charges.” The court stated: “While finding the advisement of the right to confrontation minimally adequate in this case, we note our concern over the language used and that the court’s explanation of this right should inform the defendant of the component right to cross-examine the witnesses against him.” Battle,

1989In State v. Alexander, 503 So.2d 782 (La.App.3d Cir.1987), the court held that a two year lapse between the filing of the multiple bill and the subsequent hearing was not unreasonable.