above-quoted standard in Louisiana

1936“On the necessity that plaintiff prove his case by a preponderance of the evidence, even in compensation cases, the Supreme Court, in Haddad v. Commercial Motor Truck Co., 150 La. 327, 346 , 90 So. 666, 673 , said: ‘A case must be made out to a legal certainty; this is elementary, and is as true in the case of a suit under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, like the present, as in any other.’ “In Boudreaux v. Rossen, 19 La.App. 188 , 139 So. 706, 708 , our brothers of the First Circuit followed the above-quoted rule, using the following language: ‘It is too well established to require .the citati

1936“On the necessity that plaintiff prove his case by a preponderance of the evidence, even in compensation cases, the Supreme Court, in Haddad v. Commercial Motor Truck Co., 150 La. 327, 346 , 90 So. 666, 673 , said: ‘A case must be made out to a legal certainty; this is elementary, and is as true in the case of a suit under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, like the present, as in any other.’ “In Boudreaux v. Rossen, 19 La.App. 188 , 139 So. 706, 708 , our brothers of the First Circuit followed the above-quoted rule, using the following language: ‘It is too well established to require .the citati

1936“On the necessity that plaintiff prove his case by a preponderance of the evidence, even in compensation cases, the Supreme Court, in Haddad v. Commercial Motor Truck Co., 150 La. 327, 346 , 90 So. 666, 673 , said: ‘A case must be made out to a legal certainty; this is elementary, and is as true in the case of a suit under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, like the present, as in any other.’ “In Boudreaux v. Rossen, 19 La.App. 188 , 139 So. 706, 708 , our brothers of the First Circuit followed the above-quoted rule, using the following language: ‘It is too well established to require .the citati

1936“On the necessity that plaintiff prove his case by a preponderance of the evidence, even in compensation cases, the Supreme Court, in Haddad v. Commercial Motor Truck Co., 150 La. 327, 346 , 90 So. 666, 673 , said: ‘A case must be made out to a legal certainty; this is elementary, and is as true in the case of a suit under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, like the present, as in any other.’ “In Boudreaux v. Rossen, 19 La.App. 188 , 139 So. 706, 708 , our brothers of the First Circuit followed the above-quoted rule, using the following language: ‘It is too well established to require .the citati

2020Finally, we find no merit to plaintiffs’ position as stated in their opposition to this writ application that their act of filing the two suits in the two jurisdictions (Orleans Parish and Jefferson Parish) on the same day constitutes a “reservation of rights” against the Parish of Jefferson, as that term is understood in law and the cases of Breaux v. Avondale Industries, supra; Butler, supra; and Honeycutt v. Town of Boyce, supra. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, including the above-quoted analysis by Judge Molaison in his dissent as adopted herein, upon de novo review, we find that the

2016The basis of his argument is Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 , 88 S.Ct. 1770 , 20 L.Ed.2d 776 (1968), 14 as clarified in Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412, 424 , 105 S.Ct. 844 , 83 L.Ed.2d 841 (1985)(“We therefore take this opportunity to clarify our decision in With-erspoon, and to reaffirm the above-quoted standard from Adams [v. Texas, 448 U.S. 38 , 100 S.Ct. 2521 , 65 L.Ed.2d 581 (1980) ] as the proper standard for determining when a prospective juror may be excluded for cause. because of his or her views on capital punishment.”) 15 However, a defendant tried for a capital offense who

2016The basis of his argument is Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 , 88 S.Ct. 1770 , 20 L.Ed.2d 776 (1968), 14 as clarified in Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412, 424 , 105 S.Ct. 844 , 83 L.Ed.2d 841 (1985)(“We therefore take this opportunity to clarify our decision in With-erspoon, and to reaffirm the above-quoted standard from Adams [v. Texas, 448 U.S. 38 , 100 S.Ct. 2521 , 65 L.Ed.2d 581 (1980) ] as the proper standard for determining when a prospective juror may be excluded for cause. because of his or her views on capital punishment.”) 15 However, a defendant tried for a capital offense who

2016The basis of his argument is Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 , 88 S.Ct. 1770 , 20 L.Ed.2d 776 (1968), 14 as clarified in Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412, 424 , 105 S.Ct. 844 , 83 L.Ed.2d 841 (1985)(“We therefore take this opportunity to clarify our decision in With-erspoon, and to reaffirm the above-quoted standard from Adams [v. Texas, 448 U.S. 38 , 100 S.Ct. 2521 , 65 L.Ed.2d 581 (1980) ] as the proper standard for determining when a prospective juror may be excluded for cause. because of his or her views on capital punishment.”) 15 However, a defendant tried for a capital offense who

2016The basis of his argument is Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 , 88 S.Ct. 1770 , 20 L.Ed.2d 776 (1968), 14 as clarified in Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412, 424 , 105 S.Ct. 844 , 83 L.Ed.2d 841 (1985)(“We therefore take this opportunity to clarify our decision in With-erspoon, and to reaffirm the above-quoted standard from Adams [v. Texas, 448 U.S. 38 , 100 S.Ct. 2521 , 65 L.Ed.2d 581 (1980) ] as the proper standard for determining when a prospective juror may be excluded for cause. because of his or her views on capital punishment.”) 15 However, a defendant tried for a capital offense who

2016The basis of his argument is Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 , 88 S.Ct. 1770 , 20 L.Ed.2d 776 (1968), 14 as clarified in Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412, 424 , 105 S.Ct. 844 , 83 L.Ed.2d 841 (1985)(“We therefore take this opportunity to clarify our decision in With-erspoon, and to reaffirm the above-quoted standard from Adams [v. Texas, 448 U.S. 38 , 100 S.Ct. 2521 , 65 L.Ed.2d 581 (1980) ] as the proper standard for determining when a prospective juror may be excluded for cause. because of his or her views on capital punishment.”) 15 However, a defendant tried for a capital offense who

2016The basis of his argument is Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 , 88 S.Ct. 1770 , 20 L.Ed.2d 776 (1968), 14 as clarified in Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412, 424 , 105 S.Ct. 844 , 83 L.Ed.2d 841 (1985)(“We therefore take this opportunity to clarify our decision in With-erspoon, and to reaffirm the above-quoted standard from Adams [v. Texas, 448 U.S. 38 , 100 S.Ct. 2521 , 65 L.Ed.2d 581 (1980) ] as the proper standard for determining when a prospective juror may be excluded for cause. because of his or her views on capital punishment.”) 15 However, a defendant tried for a capital offense who

2014See, e.g.: State v. Barnes, supra; State v. Brooks, 47,394, p. 11 (La.App. 2 Cir. 12/12/12), 108 So.3d 161 , 169 n. 6; State v. Mincey, 2008- 1315, p. 3 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/3/09), 14 So.3d 613, 615 ; State v. Dennis, 2012-818, pp. 8-9 (La.App. 5 Cir. 5/16/13), 118 So.3d 1166, 1172 ; State v. Pham, 2012-635, p. 14 (La.App. 5 Cir. 5/16/13), 119 So.3d 202, 212 ; State v. Sinceno, 2012-118, p. 10 (La.App. 5 Cir. 7/31/12), 99 So.3d 712, 719 ; State v. King, 2011-767, p. 8 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/28/12), 88 So.3d 1147, 1153 ; State v. Carraby, 2011-540, p. 13 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/14/12), 88 So.3d 608, 617 ; St

2014See, e.g.: State v. Barnes, supra; State v. Brooks, 47,394, p. 11 (La.App. 2 Cir. 12/12/12), 108 So.3d 161 , 169 n. 6; State v. Mincey, 2008- 1315, p. 3 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/3/09), 14 So.3d 613, 615 ; State v. Dennis, 2012-818, pp. 8-9 (La.App. 5 Cir. 5/16/13), 118 So.3d 1166, 1172 ; State v. Pham, 2012-635, p. 14 (La.App. 5 Cir. 5/16/13), 119 So.3d 202, 212 ; State v. Sinceno, 2012-118, p. 10 (La.App. 5 Cir. 7/31/12), 99 So.3d 712, 719 ; State v. King, 2011-767, p. 8 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/28/12), 88 So.3d 1147, 1153 ; State v. Carraby, 2011-540, p. 13 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/14/12), 88 So.3d 608, 617 ; St

2014See, e.g.: State v. Barnes, supra; State v. Brooks, 47,394, p. 11 (La.App. 2 Cir. 12/12/12), 108 So.3d 161 , 169 n. 6; State v. Mincey, 2008- 1315, p. 3 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/3/09), 14 So.3d 613, 615 ; State v. Dennis, 2012-818, pp. 8-9 (La.App. 5 Cir. 5/16/13), 118 So.3d 1166, 1172 ; State v. Pham, 2012-635, p. 14 (La.App. 5 Cir. 5/16/13), 119 So.3d 202, 212 ; State v. Sinceno, 2012-118, p. 10 (La.App. 5 Cir. 7/31/12), 99 So.3d 712, 719 ; State v. King, 2011-767, p. 8 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/28/12), 88 So.3d 1147, 1153 ; State v. Carraby, 2011-540, p. 13 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/14/12), 88 So.3d 608, 617 ; St

2014See, e.g.: State v. Barnes, supra; State v. Brooks, 47,394, p. 11 (La.App. 2 Cir. 12/12/12), 108 So.3d 161 , 169 n. 6; State v. Mincey, 2008- 1315, p. 3 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/3/09), 14 So.3d 613, 615 ; State v. Dennis, 2012-818, pp. 8-9 (La.App. 5 Cir. 5/16/13), 118 So.3d 1166, 1172 ; State v. Pham, 2012-635, p. 14 (La.App. 5 Cir. 5/16/13), 119 So.3d 202, 212 ; State v. Sinceno, 2012-118, p. 10 (La.App. 5 Cir. 7/31/12), 99 So.3d 712, 719 ; State v. King, 2011-767, p. 8 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/28/12), 88 So.3d 1147, 1153 ; State v. Carraby, 2011-540, p. 13 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/14/12), 88 So.3d 608, 617 ; St

2014See, e.g.: State v. Barnes, supra; State v. Brooks, 47,394, p. 11 (La.App. 2 Cir. 12/12/12), 108 So.3d 161 , 169 n. 6; State v. Mincey, 2008- 1315, p. 3 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/3/09), 14 So.3d 613, 615 ; State v. Dennis, 2012-818, pp. 8-9 (La.App. 5 Cir. 5/16/13), 118 So.3d 1166, 1172 ; State v. Pham, 2012-635, p. 14 (La.App. 5 Cir. 5/16/13), 119 So.3d 202, 212 ; State v. Sinceno, 2012-118, p. 10 (La.App. 5 Cir. 7/31/12), 99 So.3d 712, 719 ; State v. King, 2011-767, p. 8 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/28/12), 88 So.3d 1147, 1153 ; State v. Carraby, 2011-540, p. 13 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/14/12), 88 So.3d 608, 617 ; St

2014See, e.g.: State v. Barnes, supra; State v. Brooks, 47,394, p. 11 (La.App. 2 Cir. 12/12/12), 108 So.3d 161 , 169 n. 6; State v. Mincey, 2008- 1315, p. 3 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/3/09), 14 So.3d 613, 615 ; State v. Dennis, 2012-818, pp. 8-9 (La.App. 5 Cir. 5/16/13), 118 So.3d 1166, 1172 ; State v. Pham, 2012-635, p. 14 (La.App. 5 Cir. 5/16/13), 119 So.3d 202, 212 ; State v. Sinceno, 2012-118, p. 10 (La.App. 5 Cir. 7/31/12), 99 So.3d 712, 719 ; State v. King, 2011-767, p. 8 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/28/12), 88 So.3d 1147, 1153 ; State v. Carraby, 2011-540, p. 13 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/14/12), 88 So.3d 608, 617 ; St

2014See, e.g.: State v. Barnes, supra; State v. Brooks, 47,394, p. 11 (La.App. 2 Cir. 12/12/12), 108 So.3d 161 , 169 n. 6; State v. Mincey, 2008- 1315, p. 3 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/3/09), 14 So.3d 613, 615 ; State v. Dennis, 2012-818, pp. 8-9 (La.App. 5 Cir. 5/16/13), 118 So.3d 1166, 1172 ; State v. Pham, 2012-635, p. 14 (La.App. 5 Cir. 5/16/13), 119 So.3d 202, 212 ; State v. Sinceno, 2012-118, p. 10 (La.App. 5 Cir. 7/31/12), 99 So.3d 712, 719 ; State v. King, 2011-767, p. 8 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/28/12), 88 So.3d 1147, 1153 ; State v. Carraby, 2011-540, p. 13 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/14/12), 88 So.3d 608, 617 ; St

2014See, e.g.: State v. Barnes, supra; State v. Brooks, 47,394, p. 11 (La.App. 2 Cir. 12/12/12), 108 So.3d 161 , 169 n. 6; State v. Mincey, 2008- 1315, p. 3 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/3/09), 14 So.3d 613, 615 ; State v. Dennis, 2012-818, pp. 8-9 (La.App. 5 Cir. 5/16/13), 118 So.3d 1166, 1172 ; State v. Pham, 2012-635, p. 14 (La.App. 5 Cir. 5/16/13), 119 So.3d 202, 212 ; State v. Sinceno, 2012-118, p. 10 (La.App. 5 Cir. 7/31/12), 99 So.3d 712, 719 ; State v. King, 2011-767, p. 8 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/28/12), 88 So.3d 1147, 1153 ; State v. Carraby, 2011-540, p. 13 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/14/12), 88 So.3d 608, 617 ; St

1997In finding that the ship's captain did not violate the above-quoted standard of care in Employers Insurance, 866 F.2d 752 , the court stated as follows: First, there is ample evidence that Captain Kanellos carefully considered his options (none of which could be guaranteed to succeed) and made a conscious decision that the risk of dragging anchor, running aground, and spilling the vessel's hazardous cargo outweighed the risk of attempting to maneuver the vessel away from the breakwater.

1982Morgan v. American Bitumuls Co., 217 La. 968 , 47 So.2d 739 (1950); Wright v. National Security Corporation, 221 La. 486 , 59 So.2d 695 (1952); Knispel v. Gulf States Utilities Co., 174 La. 401 , 141 So. 9 (1932).

1982Morgan v. American Bitumuls Co., 217 La. 968 , 47 So.2d 739 (1950); Wright v. National Security Corporation, 221 La. 486 , 59 So.2d 695 (1952); Knispel v. Gulf States Utilities Co., 174 La. 401 , 141 So. 9 (1932).

1982Morgan v. American Bitumuls Co., 217 La. 968 , 47 So.2d 739 (1950); Wright v. National Security Corporation, 221 La. 486 , 59 So.2d 695 (1952); Knispel v. Gulf States Utilities Co., 174 La. 401 , 141 So. 9 (1932).

1982Morgan v. American Bitumuls Co., 217 La. 968 , 47 So.2d 739 (1950); Wright v. National Security Corporation, 221 La. 486 , 59 So.2d 695 (1952); Knispel v. Gulf States Utilities Co., 174 La. 401 , 141 So. 9 (1932).

1982Morgan v. American Bitumuls Co., 217 La. 968 , 47 So.2d 739 (1950); Wright v. National Security Corporation, 221 La. 486 , 59 So.2d 695 (1952); Knispel v. Gulf States Utilities Co., 174 La. 401 , 141 So. 9 (1932).

1982Morgan v. American Bitumuls Co., 217 La. 968 , 47 So.2d 739 (1950); Wright v. National Security Corporation, 221 La. 486 , 59 So.2d 695 (1952); Knispel v. Gulf States Utilities Co., 174 La. 401 , 141 So. 9 (1932).

1936“On the necessity that plaintiff prove his case by a preponderance of the evidence, even in compensation cases, the Supreme Court, in Haddad v. Commercial Motor Truck Co., 150 La. 327, 346 , 90 So. 666, 673 , said: ‘A case must be made out to a legal certainty; this is elementary, and is as true in the case of a suit under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, like the present, as in any other.’ “In Boudreaux v. Rossen, 19 La.App. 188 , 139 So. 706, 708 , our brothers of the First Circuit followed the above-quoted rule, using the following language: ‘It is too well established to require .the citati

1936“On the necessity that plaintiff prove his case by a preponderance of the evidence, even in compensation cases, the Supreme Court, in Haddad v. Commercial Motor Truck Co., 150 La. 327, 346 , 90 So. 666, 673 , said: ‘A case must be made out to a legal certainty; this is elementary, and is as true in the case of a suit under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, like the present, as in any other.’ “In Boudreaux v. Rossen, 19 La.App. 188 , 139 So. 706, 708 , our brothers of the First Circuit followed the above-quoted rule, using the following language: ‘It is too well established to require .the citati

1935Ann. 255 ; Werlein v. Jannsen, 112 La. 31 , 36 So. 216 ; 16 R.C.L. 699; Civ.Code, art. 2474. ' We think there is no doubt about what the parties meant in this case by the last phrase in the above-quoted clause of the contract.

1935Ann. 255 ; Werlein v. Jannsen, 112 La. 31 , 36 So. 216 ; 16 R.C.L. 699; Civ.Code, art. 2474. ' We think there is no doubt about what the parties meant in this case by the last phrase in the above-quoted clause of the contract.

1908“But in the case of Burgess, Bennett, et al. v. City of Jefferson, 21 La.