prejudicial jury instruction (Louisiana) · Go Syfert
← Louisiana issues

prejudicial jury instruction in Louisiana

7 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1996–2007 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.

Followed or applied (1)

CaseFollowedCited
Clement v. Freygreen
la · 1996 · cited in 5 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 1996–2007
2 sentences

2003However, "a de novo review, without any deference to the fact finder, is only appropriate when there is legal error implicit in the fact finding process or when a mistake of law forecloses the fact-finding process, such as when the fact finder's decision has been tainted by an improper and prejudicial jury instruction or erroneously admitted prejudicial evidence." Clement v. Frey, 95-1119, p. 2 (La.1/16/96), 666 So.2d 607, 612 (Lemmon, J. concurring).

1996In Clement v. Frey, 95-1119 pp. 1-2 (La. 1/16/96), 666 So.2d 607, 612 , (Lemmon, J., concurring), it was pointed out that "a de novo review, without any deference to the fact finder, is only appropriate when there is a legal error implicit in the fact finding process or when a mistake of law forecloses the fact finding process, such as when the fact finder's decision has been tainted by an improper and prejudicial jury instruction or erroneously admitted prejudicial evidence." See also Hoyt v. Wood/Chuck Chipper Corp., 92-1498 pp. 3-9 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1/6/95), 651 So.2d 1344, 1356-59 , (Gonza

35

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (11)

CaseCitedYears
Levy v. Bayou Industrial Maintenance Service, Inc. neutral
la · 2004
2 sentences

2007State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Ford Motor Company, XXXX-XXXX, p. 5 (La.App. 1 Cir. 6/15/05), 925 So.2d 1, 4 ; Levy v. Bayou Industrial Maintenance Services, Inc., XXXX-XXXX, p. 7 (La.App. 1 Cir. 9/26/03), 855 So.2d 968, 974 , writs denied, XXXX-XXXX (La.2/6/04), 865 So.2d 724 and XXXX-XXXX (La.2/6/04), 865 So.2d 727 .

2005Maintenance Services, Inc., 03-0037, p. 7 (La.App. 1st Cir.9/26/03), 855 So.2d 968, 974 , writs denied, 03-3161, 03-3200 (La.2/6/04), 865 So.2d 724 , 727, citing Clement v. Frey, 95-1119, p. 2 (La.1/16/96), 666 So.2d 607, 612 (Lemmon, J. concurring).

22005–2007
Levy v. BAYOU INDUS. MAINTENANCE SERVICES green
lactapp · 2003
2 sentences

2007State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Ford Motor Company, XXXX-XXXX, p. 5 (La.App. 1 Cir. 6/15/05), 925 So.2d 1, 4 ; Levy v. Bayou Industrial Maintenance Services, Inc., XXXX-XXXX, p. 7 (La.App. 1 Cir. 9/26/03), 855 So.2d 968, 974 , writs denied, XXXX-XXXX (La.2/6/04), 865 So.2d 724 and XXXX-XXXX (La.2/6/04), 865 So.2d 727 .

2005Maintenance Services, Inc., 03-0037, p. 7 (La.App. 1st Cir.9/26/03), 855 So.2d 968, 974 , writs denied, 03-3161, 03-3200 (La.2/6/04), 865 So.2d 724 , 727, citing Clement v. Frey, 95-1119, p. 2 (La.1/16/96), 666 So.2d 607, 612 (Lemmon, J. concurring).

22005–2007
STATE FARM MUT. AUTO. IN. v. Ford Motor Co. green
lactapp · 2005
1 sentence

2007State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Ford Motor Company, XXXX-XXXX, p. 5 (La.App. 1 Cir. 6/15/05), 925 So.2d 1, 4 ; Levy v. Bayou Industrial Maintenance Services, Inc., XXXX-XXXX, p. 7 (La.App. 1 Cir. 9/26/03), 855 So.2d 968, 974 , writs denied, XXXX-XXXX (La.2/6/04), 865 So.2d 724 and XXXX-XXXX (La.2/6/04), 865 So.2d 727 .

12007–2007
Levy v. Bayou Industrial Maintenance Service, Inc. neutral
la · 2004
1 sentence

2007State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Ford Motor Company, XXXX-XXXX, p. 5 (La.App. 1 Cir. 6/15/05), 925 So.2d 1, 4 ; Levy v. Bayou Industrial Maintenance Services, Inc., XXXX-XXXX, p. 7 (La.App. 1 Cir. 9/26/03), 855 So.2d 968, 974 , writs denied, XXXX-XXXX (La.2/6/04), 865 So.2d 724 and XXXX-XXXX (La.2/6/04), 865 So.2d 727 .

12007–2007
Hines v. Remington Arms Co., Inc. green
la · 1994
1 sentence

2005Hines v. Remington Arms Co., Inc., 94-0455, p. 6 (La.12/08/94), 648 So.2d 331, 335 . "[A] de novo review, without any deference to the fact finder, is only appropriate when there is legal error implicit in the fact finding process or when a mistake of law forecloses the fact-finding process, such as when the fact finder's decision has been tainted by an improper and prejudicial jury instruction or erroneously admitted prejudicial evidence." Levy v. Bayou Indus.

12005–2005
Lasha v. Olin Corp. green
la · 1993
1 sentence

1996Gonzales v. Xerox Corp., 320 So.2d 163 (La.1975); Lasha v. Olin Corp., 625 So.2d 1002 (La.1993); McLean v. Hunter, 495 So.2d 1298 (La.1986).

11996–1996
Hoyt v. Wood/Chuck Chipper Corp. green
lactapp · 1995
1 sentence

1996In Clement v. Frey, 95-1119 pp. 1-2 (La. 1/16/96), 666 So.2d 607, 612 , (Lemmon, J., concurring), it was pointed out that "a de novo review, without any deference to the fact finder, is only appropriate when there is a legal error implicit in the fact finding process or when a mistake of law forecloses the fact finding process, such as when the fact finder's decision has been tainted by an improper and prejudicial jury instruction or erroneously admitted prejudicial evidence." See also Hoyt v. Wood/Chuck Chipper Corp., 92-1498 pp. 3-9 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1/6/95), 651 So.2d 1344, 1356-59 , (Gonza

11996–1996
Ferrell v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. green
la · 1995
1 sentence

1996Co., 94-1252 (La. 2/20/95), 650 So.2d 742 . "[A] de novo review, without any deference to the fact finder, is only appropriate when there is legal error implicit in the factfinding process or when a mistake of law forecloses the fact-finding process, such as when the fact finder's decision has been tainted by an improper and prejudicial jury instruction or erroneously admitted prejudicial evidence." Clement v. Frey, 95-1119, p. 6 (La. 1/16/96), 666 So.2d 607, 612 (Lemmon, J., concurring) [citations omitted].

11996–1996
Gonzales v. Xerox Corp. green
la · 1975
1 sentence

1996Gonzales v. Xerox Corp., 320 So.2d 163 (La.1975); Lasha v. Olin Corp., 625 So.2d 1002 (La.1993); McLean v. Hunter, 495 So.2d 1298 (La.1986).

11996–1996
Hoyt v. Wood/Chuck Chipper Corp. green
la · 1995
1 sentence

1996In Clement v. Frey, 95-1119 pp. 1-2 (La. 1/16/96), 666 So.2d 607, 612 , (Lemmon, J., concurring), it was pointed out that "a de novo review, without any deference to the fact finder, is only appropriate when there is a legal error implicit in the fact finding process or when a mistake of law forecloses the fact finding process, such as when the fact finder's decision has been tainted by an improper and prejudicial jury instruction or erroneously admitted prejudicial evidence." See also Hoyt v. Wood/Chuck Chipper Corp., 92-1498 pp. 3-9 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1/6/95), 651 So.2d 1344, 1356-59 , (Gonza

11996–1996
McLean v. Hunter green
la · 1986
1 sentence

1996Gonzales v. Xerox Corp., 320 So.2d 163 (La.1975); Lasha v. Olin Corp., 625 So.2d 1002 (La.1993); McLean v. Hunter, 495 So.2d 1298 (La.1986).

11996–1996

Where else courts name it

LA 7 (1996–2007) OH 4 (2007–2022) CA 3 (2014–2021) WA 2 (2024–2024)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check