Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1979–2013 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Louisiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Sharbono v. Steve Lang & Son Loggersgreen1 sentence2003In Sharbono v. Steve Lang & Son Loggers, 97-110, p. 11 (La.7/1/97), 696 So.2d 1382, 1389 (emphasis added), the supreme court held: Because awards of penalties and attorney's fees are not automatic in the worker's compensation setting, but rather rest within the discretion of the hearing officer, they come due, if at all, only on the date of their award by the officer; thus, such awards may not earn interest until after that date. | 1 | 1 |
Latiolais v. Jernigan Bros., Inc.green1 sentence1994See Latiolais v. Jernigan Bros., Inc., 520 So.2d 1126, 1129 (La.App. 3d Cir.1987). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Odom
green
1 sentence2013See: State v. Odom, 2002-2698 (La.App. 1st Cir.6/27/03), 861 So.2d 187, 191 , writ denied, 2003-2142 (La.10/17/03), 855 So.2d 765 ; State v. Smith, 99-0606 (La.7/6/00), 766 So.2d 501, 504 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Smith
green
1 sentence2013See: State v. Odom, 2002-2698 (La.App. 1st Cir.6/27/03), 861 So.2d 187, 191 , writ denied, 2003-2142 (La.10/17/03), 855 So.2d 765 ; State v. Smith, 99-0606 (La.7/6/00), 766 So.2d 501, 504 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Odom
green
1 sentence2013See: State v. Odom, 2002-2698 (La.App. 1st Cir.6/27/03), 861 So.2d 187, 191 , writ denied, 2003-2142 (La.10/17/03), 855 So.2d 765 ; State v. Smith, 99-0606 (La.7/6/00), 766 So.2d 501, 504 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Sinegal v. Able Glass Co., Inc.
neutral
1 sentence2013On the other hand, the jurisprudence directs that “[t]he amount of an award of attorney’s fees is committed to the discretion of the hearing officer and will not be disturbed absent a showing of an abuse of discretion.” Sinegal v. Able Glass Co., Inc., 95-10, p. 5 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/11/95), 663 So.2d 393, 396 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Rhone v. Boh Brothers
green
1 sentence2003Rhone v. Boh Brothers, XXXX-XXXX, pp. 6-7 (La.App. 4th Cir.12/12/01), 804 So.2d 764, 768-769 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Frazier v. Conagra, Inc.
green
1 sentence1995Frazier v. Conagra, Inc., 552 So.2d 536 (La. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Foman v. Davis
green
2 sentences1994"In reversing as an abuse of discretion a trial court's failure to permit amendment, the United States Supreme Court in Foman v. Davis [ 371 U.S. 178 , 83 S.Ct. 227 , 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962)] stated that leave to amend should always be given `[i]n the absence of any apparent or declared reason such as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc.' With regard to the discretion the rule vests in th 1994"In reversing as an abuse of discretion a trial court's failure to permit amendment, the United States Supreme Court in Foman v. Davis [ 371 U.S. 178 , 83 S.Ct. 227 , 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962)] stated that leave to amend should always be given `[i]n the absence of any apparent or declared reason such as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc.' With regard to the discretion the rule vests in th | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Kreider v. Schulin's Appliance Service
green
1 sentence1993Id. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
State v. Whitmore
green
1 sentence1979State v. Titus, 358 So.2d 912 (La.1978); State v. Whitmore, 353 So.2d 1286 (La.1977). [1] Moreover, the trial court has the discretion to rule the results inadmissible even if the defense and prosecution have stipulated their admission. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
State v. Corbin
green
1 sentence1979State v. Corbin, 285 So.2d 234 (La.1973). | 1 | 1979–1979 |
State v. Titus
green
1 sentence1979State v. Titus, 358 So.2d 912 (La.1978); State v. Whitmore, 353 So.2d 1286 (La.1977). [1] Moreover, the trial court has the discretion to rule the results inadmissible even if the defense and prosecution have stipulated their admission. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.