district court granted exception in Louisiana

2021App. 5 Cir. 1/30/01), 784 So.2d 654 , the Fifth Circuit conducted a reasonableness inquiry as to the discovery of a medical malpractice claim for wrongful death, where the district court granted an exception of prescription.

2018Mr. Hutsell cites State v. Cross , 93-1189 (La. 6/30/95), 658 So.2d 683 in support of his assigned error.

2017The district court also granted the defense’s Motion to Determine Defendant’s I.Q. but declined to resolve the Atkins claim pre-trial, because the parties did not agree to leave this determination up to the court pursuant to La.C.Cr.P. 905.5.1, which states, "The jury shall try the issue of mental retardation of a capital defendant during the capital sentencing hearing unless the state and the defendant agree that the issue is to be tried by the judge.” Bell , 09-0199, p. 2, 53 So.3d at 439-40 . .

2016Dupuy v. NMC Operating Co., L.L.C. d/b/a The Spine Hospital of La., 2015-1754 (La.10/30/15), 179 So.3d 611 .

2010In the instant proceedings, the district court granted defense counsel's motion in limine to bar the State from putting Mr. Brumfield on the witness stand in the event the prosecution anticipated his intention to exercise his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and remain silent. [2] Ms. Grayson's identification of the defendant occurred prior to his arrest being publicized. [3] The defendant sought to call an expert in eyewitness identification to explain to the jury his findings that intoxication greatly increases the likelihood of false identification, that little correlati

2010In the instant proceedings, the district court granted defense counsel's motion in limine to bar the State from putting Mr. Brumfield on the witness stand in the event the prosecution anticipated his intention to exercise his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and remain silent. [2] Ms. Grayson's identification of the defendant occurred prior to his arrest being publicized. [3] The defendant sought to call an expert in eyewitness identification to explain to the jury his findings that intoxication greatly increases the likelihood of false identification, that little correlati

2010In the instant proceedings, the district court granted defense counsel's motion in limine to bar the State from putting Mr. Brumfield on the witness stand in the event the prosecution anticipated his intention to exercise his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and remain silent. [2] Ms. Grayson's identification of the defendant occurred prior to his arrest being publicized. [3] The defendant sought to call an expert in eyewitness identification to explain to the jury his findings that intoxication greatly increases the likelihood of false identification, that little correlati

2010In the instant proceedings, the district court granted defense counsel's motion in limine to bar the State from putting Mr. Brumfield on the witness stand in the event the prosecution anticipated his intention to exercise his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and remain silent. [2] Ms. Grayson's identification of the defendant occurred prior to his arrest being publicized. [3] The defendant sought to call an expert in eyewitness identification to explain to the jury his findings that intoxication greatly increases the likelihood of false identification, that little correlati

2007According to Lafayette, La.Rev.Stat. 13:5125(B) requires that the advertisements give notice to the public of all the challenges to the bond ordinance, but the advertisements published by the plaintiffs did not give notice of the issues raised for the first time in the plaintiffs' supplemental memorandum. [16] Following a hearing on Lafayette's exceptions and motion to strike the portions of the plaintiffs' supplemental memorandum that raise new issues not raised in their timely-filed motion for judgment, the district court granted the exception "to the extent that the Supplemental Memorandum

2005Id.

1987The district court granted the exception and the court of appeal affirmed, treating the suit as "... one instituted by the legatee-succession representative after the decedent's death, ..." Nathan v. Touro, et al., 501 So.2d 252, 255 .

1964The district court granted an exception of no cause of action and that judgment was affirmed by this Court. 145 So.2d 50 .