fifth assignment error in Louisiana

1957Some of these pronouncements were quoted approvingly in the later case of Domas v. Division of Employment Security of Department of Labor, 227 La. 490 , 79 So.2d 857, 862 , in which we further said: “Answering the contention presented under the fifth assignment of error that cause for dismissal was illegal and not justifiable under the circumstances in which, at the time, he found himself, we conclude that this involves purely the reasonableness of the cause based upon the final and conclusive findings of fact by the Commission, the correctness of which cannot be inquired into by the courts.”

1957Some of these pronouncements were quoted approvingly in the later case of Domas v. Division of Employment Security of Department of Labor, 227 La. 490 , 79 So.2d 857, 862 , in which we further said: “Answering the contention presented under the fifth assignment of error that cause for dismissal was illegal and not justifiable under the circumstances in which, at the time, he found himself, we conclude that this involves purely the reasonableness of the cause based upon the final and conclusive findings of fact by the Commission, the correctness of which cannot be inquired into by the courts.”

2016Caldwell v. Griggs, 924 So.2d 464 (La.App. 2nd Cir.-2006). .

2014STANDARD OF REVIEW The party pleading acquisitive prescription, in this case Mrs. Grantham, who admittedly had no just title to the property in question, is “required to bear the burden of proving” all the essential facts to support her claim of thirty-year acquisitive prescription. 3 Hillman v. Andrus, 11-5, p. 8 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/4/11), 63 So.3d 1164, 1170 , writ denied, 11-1004 (La.7/1/2011), 64 So.3d 234 .

2014STANDARD OF REVIEW The party pleading acquisitive prescription, in this case Mrs. Grantham, who admittedly had no just title to the property in question, is “required to bear the burden of proving” all the essential facts to support her claim of thirty-year acquisitive prescription. 3 Hillman v. Andrus, 11-5, p. 8 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/4/11), 63 So.3d 1164, 1170 , writ denied, 11-1004 (La.7/1/2011), 64 So.3d 234 .

2011When several issues are raised on appeal and one or more questions involve the sufficiency of the evidence, the reviewing court should review the sufficiency claims first because the accused may be entitled to an acquittal under Hudson v. Louisiana, 450 U.S. 40 , 101 S.Ct. 970 , 67 L.Ed.2d 30 (1981).

2011When several issues are raised on appeal and one or more questions involve the sufficiency of the evidence, the reviewing court should review the sufficiency claims first because the accused may be entitled to an acquittal under Hudson v. Louisiana, 450 U.S. 40 , 101 S.Ct. 970 , 67 L.Ed.2d 30 (1981).

1990Defendant asserts State v. Rabbas, 278 So.2d 45 (La.1973), specifically prohibits the use of such convictions for impeachment purposes.

1985Defendants concede that State v. LeCompte, 406 So.2d 1300 (La.1981), is on point which holds to the contrary.

1982The rule enunciated in Gonzales v. Xerox Corporation, La., 320 So.2d 163 , is that when an appellate court has all the facts before it, a trial judge's erroneous instruction to the jury does not warrant a remand; under such circumstances the appellate court must review the trial record and reach a decision on the merits.

1931In the case of Milton v. Long-Bell Lumber Company, 165 La. 336 , 115 So. 582, 584 , a case involving the same issues presented here, the Supreme Court held: “We think the facts show that at the time of decedent’s death, and for three or four months preceding his death, the relator and the .deceased lived separate and apart, by mutual consent; that relator maintained herself during that time, and, when her husband died, she cannot be held to have been dependent upon him for support, within the mean'ing of the Employers’ Liability Act. * * * “With reference to the fifth assignment of error, we w

1931In the case of Milton v. Long-Bell Lumber Company, 165 La. 336 , 115 So. 582, 584 , a case involving the same issues presented here, the Supreme Court held: “We think the facts show that at the time of decedent’s death, and for three or four months preceding his death, the relator and the .deceased lived separate and apart, by mutual consent; that relator maintained herself during that time, and, when her husband died, she cannot be held to have been dependent upon him for support, within the mean'ing of the Employers’ Liability Act. * * * “With reference to the fifth assignment of error, we w