Supreme Court examined standard in Louisiana

2016Co., 601 So.2d at 1386 , the Supreme Court examined the framework for choosing between the district court’s authority to apply and implement Louisiana laws and the LPSC’s authority to regulate rates and service: [T]he [L] PSC has constitutional and statutory jurisdiction over subject matters which principally involve the right to fix and regulate rates charged by and services furnished by public utilities.

2016Co., 601 So.2d at 1386 , the Supreme Court examined the framework for choosing between the district court’s authority to apply and implement Louisiana laws and the LPSC’s authority to regulate rates and service: [T]he [L] PSC has constitutional and statutory jurisdiction over subject matters which principally involve the right to fix and regulate rates charged by and services furnished by public utilities.

2008Based on the language of the above statute, this court has established the following five elements that must be satisfied for a finding that a second action is precluded by res judicata: "(1) the judgment is valid; (2) the judgment is final; (3) the parties are the same; (4) the cause or causes of action asserted in the second suit existed at the time of final judgment in the first litigation; and (5) the cause or causes of action asserted *1194 in the second suit arose out of the transaction or occurrence that was the subject matter of the first litigation." Burguieres v. Pollingue, 02-1385,

2008Based on the language of the above statute, this court has established the following five elements that must be satisfied for a finding that a second action is precluded by res judicata: “(1) the judgment is valid; (2) the judgment is final; (3) the parties are the same; (4) the cause or causes of action asserted in the second suit existed at the time of final judgment in the first litigation; and (5) the cause or causes of action asserted in the second suit arose out of the transaction or occurrence that was the subject matter of the first litigation.” Burguieres v. Pollingue, 02-1385, p. 7 (

2008In Chevron USA, Inc. v. State, 07-2469 (La.9/08/08), 993 So.2d 187 , the Supreme Court examined the doctrine of res judicata and stated: The doctrine of res judicata in Louisiana is set forth in La.Rev.Stat. 13:4231 which was amended in 1990 to provide as follows: Except as otherwise provided by law, a valid and final judgment is conclusive between the same parties, except on appeal or other direct review, to the following extent: (1) If the judgment is in favor of the plaintiff, all causes of action existing at the time of final judgment arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is th

2008In Chevron USA, Inc. v. State, 07-2469 (La.9/08/08), 993 So.2d 187 , the Supreme Court examined the doctrine of res judica-ta and stated: | /fhe doctrine of res judicata in Louisiana is set forth in La.Rev.Stat. 13:4231 which was amended in 1990 to provide as follows: Except as otherwise provided by law, a valid and final judgment is conclusive between the same parties, except on appeal or other direct review, to the following extent: (1) If the judgment is in favor of the plaintiff, all causes of action existing at the time of final judgment arising out of the transaction or occurrence that i

2006In Filson v. Windsor Court Hotel, 04-2893, p. 4 (La.6/29/05), 907 So.2d 723, 726-727 , the supreme court examined the requirement to request service within ninety days in detail.

2006In Filson v. Windsor Court Hotel, 04-2893, p. 4 (La.6/29/05), 907 So.2d 723, 726-727 , the supreme court examined the requirement to request service within ninety days in detail.

2005In Aguillard, supra, the supreme court examined a claim that such a contract was adhesionary and rejected it, finding that there is a presumption of arbitrability: [E]ven when the scope of an arbitration clause is fairly debatable or reasonably in doubt, the court should decide the question of construction in favor of arbitration.

1998In Youn v. Maritime Overseas Corp., 623 So.2d 1257, 1260-61 (La.1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1114 , 114 S.Ct. 1059 , 127 L.Ed.2d 379 (1994) (footnote omitted), the supreme court examined the standard of review appellate courts are to apply while reviewing a damage award: In Reck v. Stevens, 373 So.2d 498 (La. 1979), this Court commented on appellate review of general damage awards and on the "much discretion" in fixing damages accorded to trial courts by La.Civ.Code art.1934(3)(1870).

1998In Youn v. Maritime Overseas Corp., 623 So.2d 1257, 1260-61 (La.1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1114 , 114 S.Ct. 1059 , 127 L.Ed.2d 379 (1994) (footnote omitted), the supreme court examined the standard of review appellate courts are to apply while reviewing a damage award: In Reck v. Stevens, 373 So.2d 498 (La. 1979), this Court commented on appellate review of general damage awards and on the "much discretion" in fixing damages accorded to trial courts by La.Civ.Code art.1934(3)(1870).

1998In Youn v. Maritime Overseas Corp., 623 So.2d 1257, 1260-61 (La.1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1114 , 114 S.Ct. 1059 , 127 L.Ed.2d 379 (1994) (footnote omitted), the supreme court examined the standard of review appellate courts are to apply while reviewing a damage award: In Reck v. Stevens, 373 So.2d 498 (La. 1979), this Court commented on appellate review of general damage awards and on the "much discretion" in fixing damages accorded to trial courts by La.Civ.Code art.1934(3)(1870).

1998In Youn v. Maritime Overseas Corp., 623 So.2d 1257, 1260-61 (La.1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1114 , 114 S.Ct. 1059 , 127 L.Ed.2d 379 (1994) (footnote omitted), the supreme court examined the standard of review appellate courts are to apply while reviewing a damage award: In Reck v. Stevens, 373 So.2d 498 (La. 1979), this Court commented on appellate review of general damage awards and on the "much discretion" in fixing damages accorded to trial courts by La.Civ.Code art.1934(3)(1870).

1987The Supreme Court examined the doctrine of abuse of rights in Illinois Central Gulf Railroad Company v. International Harvester Company, 368 So.2d 1009 (La.1979): "[T]he doctrine is the product of a French jurisprudential and doctrinal movement which has expanded into most of the civil law jurisdictions "to the point of becoming a widely accepted principle of the Civil Law." Cue-to-Rua, Abuse of Rights, 35 La.L.Rev. 965, 967 (1975).