explained standard in Louisiana

2013In State v. Dank, 99-0390, pp. 4-5 (La.App. 4 Cir. 5/24/00), 764 So.2d 148, 155 , this Court explained the factors a reviewing court must consider in determining whether an investigatory stop was permissible.

2007C.Cr.P. art. 215.1(A) provides that "[a] law enforcement officer may stop a person in a public place whom he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed, or is about to commit an offense and may demand of him his name, address, and an explanation of his actions." In State v. Dank, 99-0390 (La.App. 4 Cir. 5/24/00) , 764 So.2d 148 , this Court explained the factors a reviewing court must consider in determining whether an investigatory stop was permissible.

2011Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 966(B) states that summary judgment shall be rendered “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to material fact, and that mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” In Boykin v. PPG Industries, Inc., 08-117, p. 4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/18/08), 987 So.2d 838, 842 , writs denied, 08-1634 and 08-1649 (La.10/31/08) 994 So.2d 537 , this court explained the standard of review applicable to motions for summary judgment, stating: Appellate

2010Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 966(B) states that summary judgment shall be rendered "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to material fact, and that mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." In Boykin v. PPG Industries, Inc., 08-117, p. 4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/18/08), 987 So.2d 838, 842 , writs denied, 08-1634 and 08-1649 (La.10/31/08) 994 So.2d 537 , this court explained the standard of review applicable to motions for summary judgment, stating: Appellate

2011Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 966(B) states that summary judgment shall be rendered “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to material fact, and that mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” In Boykin v. PPG Industries, Inc., 08-117, p. 4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/18/08), 987 So.2d 838, 842 , writs denied, 08-1634 and 08-1649 (La.10/31/08) 994 So.2d 537 , this court explained the standard of review applicable to motions for summary judgment, stating: Appellate

2010Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 966(B) states that summary judgment shall be rendered "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to material fact, and that mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." In Boykin v. PPG Industries, Inc., 08-117, p. 4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/18/08), 987 So.2d 838, 842 , writs denied, 08-1634 and 08-1649 (La.10/31/08) 994 So.2d 537 , this court explained the standard of review applicable to motions for summary judgment, stating: Appellate

2016This Court explained the standard of review for summary judgments in Pouncy v. Winn-Dixie La., Inc., 15-189 (La.App. 5 Cir. 10/28/15) ; 178 So.3d 603, 605 , by stating the following: A motion for summary judgment is a procedural device used to avoid a full-scale trial when there is no genuine issue of material fact. | fiThe summary judgment procedure is favored and is designed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action.

2016This Court explained the standard of review for summary judgments in Pouncy v. Winn-Dixie La., Inc., 15-189 (La.App. 5 Cir. 10/28/15) ; 178 So.3d 603, 605 , by stating the following: A motion for summary judgment is a procedural device used to avoid a full-scale trial when there is no genuine issue of material fact. | fiThe summary judgment procedure is favored and is designed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action.

2015(Citations omitted.) Additionally, in Phillip Family L.L.C. v. Bayou Fleet P’ship, 12-565 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/21/13) , 110 So.3d 1158, 1167-68 , writ denied, 13-0641 (La.4/26/13), 112 So.3d 846 , this Court explained the standard of appellate review of a trial court’s findings of fact based on expert testimony, to-wit: In considering expert testimony, a trial court may accept or reject, in whole or in part, the opinion expressed by an expert.

2015(Citations omitted.) Additionally, in Phillip Family L.L.C. v. Bayou Fleet P’ship, 12-565 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/21/13) , 110 So.3d 1158, 1167-68 , writ denied, 13-0641 (La.4/26/13), 112 So.3d 846 , this Court explained the standard of appellate review of a trial court’s findings of fact based on expert testimony, to-wit: In considering expert testimony, a trial court may accept or reject, in whole or in part, the opinion expressed by an expert.

2015(Citations omitted.) Additionally, in Phillip Family L.L.C. v. Bayou Fleet P’ship, 12-565 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/21/13) , 110 So.3d 1158, 1167-68 , writ denied, 13-0641 (La.4/26/13), 112 So.3d 846 , this Court explained the standard of appellate review of a trial court’s findings of fact based on expert testimony, to-wit: In considering expert testimony, a trial court may accept or reject, in whole or in part, the opinion expressed by an expert.

2015In Phillip Family L.L.C. v. Bayou Fleet P’ship, 12-565 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/21/18) , 110 So.3d 1158, 1167-68 , writ denied, 13-0641 (La.4/26/13), 112 So.3d 846 , this Court explained the standard of appellate review of a trial court’s findings of fact based on expert testimony, to-wit: |isln considering expert testimony, a trial court may accept or reject, in whole or in part, - the opinion expressed by an expert.

1999The court may then determine the facts and render judgment against the plaintiff and in favor of the moving party or may decline to render any judgment until the close of all the evidence. *735 In Mayes v. State, 96-789, p. 4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/11/96); 685 So.2d 497, 500 , writ denied, 97-0113 (La.3/7/97); 689 So.2d 1376 (citations omitted), this court explained the standard of review applicable to an involuntary dismissal as follows: The trial court has much discretion in determining whether to grant a motion for involuntary dismissal.

1999App. 3 Cir. 12/11/96), 685 So.2d 497, 500 , writ denied, 97-0113 (La.3/7/97), 689 So.2d 1376 (citations omitted), this court explained the standard of review applicable to an involuntary dismissal as follows: The trial court has much discretion in determining whether to grant a motion for involuntary dismissal.

1999The court may then determine the facts and render judgment against the plaintiff and in favor of the moving party or may decline to render any judgment until the close of all the evidence. *735 In Mayes v. State, 96-789, p. 4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/11/96); 685 So.2d 497, 500 , writ denied, 97-0113 (La.3/7/97); 689 So.2d 1376 (citations omitted), this court explained the standard of review applicable to an involuntary dismissal as follows: The trial court has much discretion in determining whether to grant a motion for involuntary dismissal.

1999App. 3 Cir. 12/11/96), 685 So.2d 497, 500 , writ denied, 97-0113 (La.3/7/97), 689 So.2d 1376 (citations omitted), this court explained the standard of review applicable to an involuntary dismissal as follows: The trial court has much discretion in determining whether to grant a motion for involuntary dismissal.

2019App. 4 Cir. 8/15/12), 99 So.3d 74, 80 , as follows: “A trial court has broad discretion in the granting or denial of a preliminary injunction, and will not be disturbed on review absent clear abuse of that discretion.” Cajun Elec.

2019App. 4 Cir. 8/15/12), 99 So.3d 74, 80 , as follows: “A trial court has broad discretion in the granting or denial of a preliminary injunction, and will not be disturbed on review absent clear abuse of that discretion.” Cajun Elec.

2008This Court explained the standard of review of the sustainment or denial of a peremptory exception of no cause of action in Fink v. Bryant, XXXX-XXXX, (La.11/29/01), 801 So.2d 346 : The function of the peremptory exception of no cause of action is to question whether the law extends a remedy to anyone under the factual allegations of the petition.

2007STANDARD OF REVIEW This Court explained the standard of review of the sustainment or denial of a peremptory exception of no cause of action in Fink v. Bryant, XXXX-XXXX, (La.11/29/01), 801 So.2d 346 : The function of the peremptory exception of no cause of action is to question whether the law extends a remedy to anyone under the factual allegations of the petition.

2007This court explained the doctrine of "law of the case" in Griggs v. Riverland Medical Center, 98-256 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/14/98) , 722 So.2d 15, 19 , writ denied, 99-0385 (La.5/28/99), 735 So.2d 622 : The "law of the case" doctrine applies to prior rulings of the appellate court and/or supreme court in the same case.

2007This court explained the doctrine of "law of the case" in Griggs v. Riverland Medical Center, 98-256 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/14/98) , 722 So.2d 15, 19 , writ denied, 99-0385 (La.5/28/99), 735 So.2d 622 : The "law of the case" doctrine applies to prior rulings of the appellate court and/or supreme court in the same case.

2007In Dejoie v. Medley, 41-974, 41,333 (La.App.2d Cir.12/20/06), 945 So.2d 968 , this court explained that the exception is triable on the face of the petition, each well-pled fact of which must be accepted as true.

2007In Dejoie v. Medley, 41-974, 41,333 (La.App. 2d Cir.12/20/06), 945 So.2d 968 , this court explained that the exception is triable on the face of the petition, each well-pled fact of which must be accepted as true.

2007This court explained the doctrine of "law of the case" in Griggs v. Riverland Medical Center, 98-256 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/14/98) , 722 So.2d 15, 19 , writ denied, 99-0385 (La.5/28/99), 735 So.2d 622 : The "law of the case" doctrine applies to prior rulings of the appellate court and/or supreme court in the same case.

2005This court explained the doctrine of "law of the case" in Griggs v. Riverland Medical Center, 98-256 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/14/98) , 722 So.2d 15, 19 , writ denied, 99-0385 (La.5/28/99), 735 So.2d 622 : The "law of the case" doctrine applies to prior rulings of the appellate court and/or supreme court in the same case.

2021App. 4 Cir. 6/27/18), 250 So.3d 1046, 1053 , this Court explained the standard of review in contract interpretation as follows: A dispute arising out of whether or not the language of a contract is ambiguous is an issue of law subject to de novo review.

2018Smith v. Municipal Fire & Police Civil Service Bd. , 94-625 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/2/94) , 649 So.2d 566 ; McDonald v. City of Shreveport , 655 So.2d 588 (La.App. 2 Cir.1995).

2018Smith v. Municipal Fire & Police Civil Service Bd. , 94-625 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/2/94) , 649 So.2d 566 ; McDonald v. City of Shreveport , 655 So.2d 588 (La.App. 2 Cir.1995).

2018In Poiencot v. Lafayette Consolidated Government , 16-1009, pp. 5-6 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/31/17), 222 So.3d 733 , 736 (quoting Moore v. Ware , 01-3341, pp.7-8 (La. 2/25/03), 839 So.2d 940 , 945-46 ), this court explained the standard of review required by the appellate court, stating: If made in good faith and statutory cause, a decision of the civil service board cannot be disturbed on judicial review.

2018In Poiencot v. Lafayette Consolidated Government , 16-1009, pp. 5-6 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/31/17), 222 So.3d 733 , 736 (quoting Moore v. Ware , 01-3341, pp.7-8 (La. 2/25/03), 839 So.2d 940 , 945-46 ), this court explained the standard of review required by the appellate court, stating: If made in good faith and statutory cause, a decision of the civil service board cannot be disturbed on judicial review.

2016As for the letters being presented in redacted form, in State v. Duke, 97-3059 (La. 10/30/98), 724 So.2d 730 , this Court explained the rule of completeness, see R.S. 15:450, which guards against the manipulation of an accused’s statement: ...

2016DISCUSSION This court explained the standard of review applied by an appellate court'relative to a motion for summary judgment in Ravey v. Rockworks, LLC, 12-1305, pp. 2-3 (La.App, 3 Cir. 4/10/13), 111 So.3d 1187 , 1189-90: When an appellate court reviews a district court’s judgment on a motipn for summary judgment, it applies the, de novo standard of review, “using the same criteria that govern the trial court’s consideration of whether summary judgment is appropriate, i.e., whether there is a genuine issue of material fact and whether the mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Su

2016App. 5 Cir. 1989), writ denied, 544 So.2d 407 (La. 1989), this court explained the factors to be considered by the Board in granting a variance: The Jefferson Parish Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance (CZO), Section XXII 3.B, sets forth the circumstances which must exist before the zoning board may grant a variance, which can be summarized as follows: 1.

2016A motion for summary judgment shall be granted when “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admission on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue of material fact, and that the mover is entitled to judgihent as a matter of law.” La.Code Civ.P. art. 966. “[I]f reasonable persons could only reach one conclusion,- then there is no need for trial on that issue and summary judgment is appropriate.” Hines v. Garrett, 04-806, p. 1 (La.6/25/04), 876 So.2d 764, 765-66 (quoting Smith v. Our Lady of the-Lake Hasp., Inc., 93-2512, p. 27 (La,7/5/9

2016DISCUSSION This court explained the standard of review applied by an appellate court'relative to a motion for summary judgment in Ravey v. Rockworks, LLC, 12-1305, pp. 2-3 (La.App, 3 Cir. 4/10/13), 111 So.3d 1187 , 1189-90: When an appellate court reviews a district court’s judgment on a motipn for summary judgment, it applies the, de novo standard of review, “using the same criteria that govern the trial court’s consideration of whether summary judgment is appropriate, i.e., whether there is a genuine issue of material fact and whether the mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Su

2016In the instant case, the trial court found an absence of a meeting of the minds between the parties and ruled there was no settlement. • In Adrian v. Adrian, 15-419, pp. 2-3 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/4/15), 178 So.3d 297, 299-300 , this court explained the standard of review applicable herein as follows: This court has applied the manifest error/clearly wrong standard when reviewing a “trial court’s determination that there existed a valid and enforceable settlement agreement.” Geer v. BP Am.

2014Continuing, this court noted: A verbatim recitation of the warnings as set out in Miranda is not required, and the Supreme Court has “never insisted that Miranda warnings be given in the exact form described in that decision.” Duckworth v. Eagan, 492 U.S. 195, 202 , 109 S.Ct. 2875 , 106 L.Ed.2d 166 (1989).

2014Continuing, this court noted: A verbatim recitation of the warnings as set out in Miranda is not required, and the Supreme Court has “never insisted that Miranda warnings be given in the exact form described in that decision.” Duckworth v. Eagan, 492 U.S. 195, 202 , 109 S.Ct. 2875 , 106 L.Ed.2d 166 (1989).

2014Id. at 498, citing Trunk v. Medical Center of Louisiana at New Orleans, 04-0181 (La.10/19/04), 885 So.2d 534 .

2013Madison v. Dep’t of Police, 07-2405, p. 3 (La.4/4/08), 978 So.2d 288, 290 .

2013State v. Landry, supra [ 2003-1671 (La.App. 4 Cir. 3/31/04) , 871 So.2d 1235 ]; State v. Trepagnier, 97-2427 (La.App. 4 Cir. 9/15/99) , 744 So.2d 181 .