availability defense in Louisiana

2014Louisiana Revised Statutes 9:2791(B) provides that immunity is not available “when the premises are used principally for a commercial, recreational enterprise for profit.” Louisiana Revised Statutes 9:2795(B)(1) also provides that immunity is not available for “an owner of commercial recreational developments or facilities.” These provisions have been interpreted by the Louisiana Supreme Court to mean that “it is the ‘owner’s’ use of the premises and not the underlying classification of the premises as a commercial recreational enterprise for profit that determines the availability of the immu

2010The trial court explained that according to Richard, 874 So.2d 131 , it is the owner’s use of the premises which determines the availability of immunity, and thus, because there was no evidence that Burlington used its property for a commercial recreational enterprise, immunity applies.

2017Ward v. Succession of Freeman, 854 F.2d 780 (5th Cir. 1988), applied the principles expressed in Gamer and concluded that the shareholders had failed to show good cause to prevent management from invoking the corporation’s attorney-client privilege.

1994Ward v. Succession of Freeman, 854 F.2d 780 (5th Cir.1988), applied the principles expressed in Garner and concluded that the shareholders had failed to show good cause to prevent management from invoking the corporation’s attorney-client privilege.

2017The Louisiana Supreme Court stated: In Garner v. Wolfinbarger, 430 F.2d 1093 (5th Cir.1970), the Court of Appeals held that the management of a corporation is not barred from asserting the corporation’s attorney-client privilege merely because stockholders demand access to the confidential information, but that where the corporation is in suit against its stockholders on charges of acting inimically to stockholder interests, protection of those interests as well as those of the corporation and of the public require that the availability of the privilege be subject to the right of the stockhold

1994In Garner v. Wolfinbarger, 430 F.2d 1093 (5th Cir.1970), the Court of Appeals held that the management of a corporation is not barred from asserting the corporation’s attorney-client privilege merely because stockholders demand access to the confidential information, but that where the corporation is in suit against its stockholders on charges of acting inimically to stockholder interests, protection of those interests as well as those of the corporation and of the public require that the availability of the privilege be subject to the right of the stockholders to show that there is good cause

1989The availability of the defense is not dependent upon statements made by the insured in the application; the question is whether the policy excludes coverage for preexisting conditions.” Also, in Murray v. Reserve Life Insurance Co., 467 So.2d 55 (La.App. 4th Cir.), writ denied, 472 So.2d 916 (La.1985), our brethren in the Fourth Circuit, relying on Borer, determined that the representations made on a life insurance application have no bearing on the enforceability of a pre-exist-ing condition clause.

1989The availability of the defense is not dependent upon statements made by the insured in the application; the question is whether the policy excludes coverage for preexisting conditions.” Also, in Murray v. Reserve Life Insurance Co., 467 So.2d 55 (La.App. 4th Cir.), writ denied, 472 So.2d 916 (La.1985), our brethren in the Fourth Circuit, relying on Borer, determined that the representations made on a life insurance application have no bearing on the enforceability of a pre-exist-ing condition clause.

1985The availability of the defense is not dependent upon statements made by the insured in the application; the question is whether the policy excludes coverage for preexisting conditions.” Id. at 1126 .

1977"At the very least, the First and Fourteenth Amendments will not allow exposing the press to liability for truthfully publishing information released to the public in official court records." Cox Broadcasting Corporation v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469 , 95 S.Ct. 1029 , 43 L.Ed.2d 328 (1975).

1977"At the very least, the First and Fourteenth Amendments will not allow exposing the press to liability for truthfully publishing information released to the public in official court records." Cox Broadcasting Corporation v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469 , 95 S.Ct. 1029 , 43 L.Ed.2d 328 (1975).

1971As an innocent third party, Mrs. Benjamin need only show circumstances which indicate that the negligence of Mr. Benjamin or Pizzalato 1 or both caused the accident, to be entitled to recovery under the doctrine stated in Poche v. Frazier, 232 So.2d 851, 856 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1970), writs refused 256 La. 266 , 236 So.2d 36 : "Our law is well settled that when an innocent third party is injured as a result of a collision between two drivers, each of the drivers is deemed guilty of negligence per se 1 and the burden of proof falls upon each to exculpate himself from negligence proximately causing

1971As an innocent third party, Mrs. Benjamin need only show circumstances which indicate that the negligence of Mr. Benjamin or Pizzalato 1 or both caused the accident, to be entitled to recovery under the doctrine stated in Poche v. Frazier, 232 So.2d 851, 856 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1970), writs refused 256 La. 266 , 236 So.2d 36 : "Our law is well settled that when an innocent third party is injured as a result of a collision between two drivers, each of the drivers is deemed guilty of negligence per se 1 and the burden of proof falls upon each to exculpate himself from negligence proximately causing