reasoned rule in Louisiana

1974Peiser v. Grand Isle, Inc., 224 La. 299 , 69 So.2d 51 ; Peltier v. Thibodaux, 175 La. 1026 , 144 So. 903 ." See also Nunez v. Ricks, 262 So.2d 585 (La.App.3d Cir. 1972), rehearing denied.

1974Peiser v. Grand Isle, Inc., 224 La. 299 , 69 So.2d 51 ; Peltier v. Thibodaux, 175 La. 1026 , 144 So. 903 ." See also Nunez v. Ricks, 262 So.2d 585 (La.App.3d Cir. 1972), rehearing denied.

1974Peiser v. Grand Isle, Inc., 224 La. 299 , 69 So.2d 51 ; Peltier v. Thibodaux, 175 La. 1026 , 144 So. 903 ." See also Nunez v. Ricks, 262 So.2d 585 (La.App.3d Cir. 1972), rehearing denied.

1974Peiser v. Grand Isle, Inc., 224 La. 299 , 69 So.2d 51 ; Peltier v. Thibodaux, 175 La. 1026 , 144 So. 903 ." See also Nunez v. Ricks, 262 So.2d 585 (La.App.3d Cir. 1972), rehearing denied.

2006The court reasoned that a claim "which charges defendant with knowledge and failure to warn plaintiff of a hazardous condition in the construction asserts a claim based in fraud." Id. at 1388 .

2005Humphrey, 97-1742 at pp. 3-4, 709 So.2d at 335 . [11] Vergie Booty, Director of Public Utility and Audits for the Commission, testified that the Commission appraised the plaintiffs' properties at fair market value for each of the tax years at issue. [12] Louisiana Revised Statutes 47:1853(B)(2) provides: (2) However, all public service properties of the same nature and kind shall be appraised in the same manner.

2002In declaring the contract void, the First Circuit determined that Parker's "failure to comply with Rule 3.1( o ) defeats the purpose of the civil service laws." The court reasoned that the requirement of advance approval by the director was necessary for the protection of classified employees and "[i]f approval of such contracts between the state and proposed independent contractors was not required, state officials could easily circumvent the reasons for establishing the Civil Service Commission...." Id. at 167 .

1998It likened the "specific intent to inflict great bodily harm" error to the "beyond a reasonable doubt" error recognized in Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275 , 113 S.Ct. 2078 , 124 L.Ed.2d 182 (1993).

1998It likened the "specific intent to inflict great bodily harm" error to the "beyond a reasonable doubt" error recognized in Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275 , 113 S.Ct. 2078 , 124 L.Ed.2d 182 (1993).

1995In doing so, the court reasoned: As this Court stated in Hinchman v. Oubre, 445 So.2d 1313 (La.App. 5 Cir.1984), 445 So.2d at 1317 : If a corporation has sustained a loss then only that corporation can sue to recover it. * * * A person who conducts business in corporate form and reaps the benefits of incorporation cannot sue individually for damages incurred by the corporation. * * * [Citations omitted.] As stated in the trial court's well reasoned analysis, although the jury found that FNJ breached an obligation to TGA, it also found this breach caused Wyatt and Naquin's personal bankruptcies

1995In doing so, the court reasoned: As this Court stated in Hinchman v. Oubre, 445 So.2d 1313 (La.App. 5 Cir.1984), 445 So.2d at 1317 : If a corporation has sustained a loss then only that corporation can sue to recover it. * * * A person who conducts business in corporate form and reaps the benefits of incorporation cannot sue individually for damages incurred by the corporation. * * * [Citations omitted.] As stated in the trial court's well reasoned analysis, although the jury found that FNJ breached an obligation to TGA, it also found this breach caused Wyatt and Naquin's personal bankruptcies

1987Additionally, the court reasoned that the requirement that the compromise agreement be reduced to writing "implies that the agreement be evidenced by documentation signed by both parties." The court went on to explain that a compromise agreement had to be in writing to serve as proof of the agreement and acquiescence to the agreement. "[T]o serve as written proof of the agreement and obligations of both parties, and their acquiescence therein, *479 the written agreement must be signed by both parties, obligating both to do what they have agreed on." Felder, 405 So.2d at 523 .

1982Such use of the presumption by the jury would alleviate the state's burden of proving every fact necessary to constitute the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt. [4] In State v. Gutter, 393 So.2d 700 (La. 1981), however, this court distinguished the Sandstrom decision.

1974Peiser v. Grand Isle, Inc., 224 La. 299 , 69 So.2d 51 ; Peltier v. Thibodaux, 175 La. 1026 , 144 So. 903 ." See also Nunez v. Ricks, 262 So.2d 585 (La.App.3d Cir. 1972), rehearing denied.