upon hearing in Louisiana

1991C.C.P. art. 1453 states: "All errors and irregularities in the notice for taking a deposition are waived unless written objection is promptly served upon the party giving the notice." Unlike Hollier v. Galtier, 430 So.2d 376 (La.App. 3 Cir.1983) and Highstreet v. Regency Apartment Hotel, 337 So.2d 536 (La.App. 4 Cir.1976), app. den. 340 So.2d 994 (La.1977), quoted by appellants, counsel for plaintiff was present at the deposition and cross-examined the witness, even though there was no written notice.

1989In Highstreet v. Regency Apartment Hotel, 337 So.2d 536 (La.App. 4 Cir.1976), writ denied, 340 So.2d 994 (La.1977), the trial court allowed the defendant to introduce into evidence a deposition of a witness even though the opposing party was not present at the deposition and had not received proper notice thereof.

1991C.C.P. art. 1453 states: "All errors and irregularities in the notice for taking a deposition are waived unless written objection is promptly served upon the party giving the notice." Unlike Hollier v. Galtier, 430 So.2d 376 (La.App. 3 Cir.1983) and Highstreet v. Regency Apartment Hotel, 337 So.2d 536 (La.App. 4 Cir.1976), app. den. 340 So.2d 994 (La.1977), quoted by appellants, counsel for plaintiff was present at the deposition and cross-examined the witness, even though there was no written notice.

1989In Highstreet v. Regency Apartment Hotel, 337 So.2d 536 (La.App. 4 Cir.1976), writ denied, 340 So.2d 994 (La.1977), the trial court allowed the defendant to introduce into evidence a deposition of a witness even though the opposing party was not present at the deposition and had not received proper notice thereof.

2010Raulerson v. State, 763 So.2d 285 (Fla.2000); State v. McFadden, 772 So.2d 1209 (Fla.2000); State v. Finelli, 780 So.2d 31 (Fla.2001).

2010Raulerson v. State, 763 So.2d 285 (Fla.2000); State v. McFadden, 772 So.2d 1209 (Fla.2000); State v. Finelli, 780 So.2d 31 (Fla.2001).

2010Raulerson v. State, 763 So.2d 285 (Fla.2000); State v. McFadden, 772 So.2d 1209 (Fla.2000); State v. Finelli, 780 So.2d 31 (Fla.2001).

1991C.C.P. art. 1453 states: "All errors and irregularities in the notice for taking a deposition are waived unless written objection is promptly served upon the party giving the notice." Unlike Hollier v. Galtier, 430 So.2d 376 (La.App. 3 Cir.1983) and Highstreet v. Regency Apartment Hotel, 337 So.2d 536 (La.App. 4 Cir.1976), app. den. 340 So.2d 994 (La.1977), quoted by appellants, counsel for plaintiff was present at the deposition and cross-examined the witness, even though there was no written notice.

1984State v. Norwood, 396 So.2d 1307 (La.1981). [16] Because of these comments, we were even concerned that there was another police report being viewed in camera that had not been included among the papers sealed by the trial court upon defense counsel's request.

1957Articles 667, 668, LSA-Civil Code. [1] Gotreaux v. Gary, 232 La. 373 , 94 So.2d 293 ; Fontenot v. Magnolia Petroleum Co., 227 *699 La. 866, 80 So.2d 845 , noted, 16 La.Law Rev. 590; Jones v. Morgan, La.App. 1 Cir., 96 So.2d 109 ; Bruno v. Employers' Liability Assur.

1957Articles 667, 668, LSA-Civil Code. [1] Gotreaux v. Gary, 232 La. 373 , 94 So.2d 293 ; Fontenot v. Magnolia Petroleum Co., 227 *699 La. 866, 80 So.2d 845 , noted, 16 La.Law Rev. 590; Jones v. Morgan, La.App. 1 Cir., 96 So.2d 109 ; Bruno v. Employers' Liability Assur.

1957Articles 667, 668, LSA-Civil Code. [1] Gotreaux v. Gary, 232 La. 373 , 94 So.2d 293 ; Fontenot v. Magnolia Petroleum Co., 227 *699 La. 866, 80 So.2d 845 , noted, 16 La.Law Rev. 590; Jones v. Morgan, La.App. 1 Cir., 96 So.2d 109 ; Bruno v. Employers' Liability Assur.

1957Articles 667, 668, LSA-Civil Code. [1] Gotreaux v. Gary, 232 La. 373 , 94 So.2d 293 ; Fontenot v. Magnolia Petroleum Co., 227 *699 La. 866, 80 So.2d 845 , noted, 16 La.Law Rev. 590; Jones v. Morgan, La.App. 1 Cir., 96 So.2d 109 ; Bruno v. Employers' Liability Assur.

1944In the course of its opinion this court said: “The implied power to remove cannot be contracted away so as to bind the appointing authority to retain a minor officer or employee for a definite, fixed period.” One of the cases cited by the court in support of its conclusions in that case was Kirkpatrick v. City of Monroe, supra. In Garnier v. Louisiana Milk Commission, 200 La. 594 , 8 So.2d 611 , it was held that the state milk commission in employing a secretary had no authority to fix by resolution the term of the secretary’s office, and hence the commission could, notwithstanding its contrac

1944In the course of its opinion this court said: “The implied power to remove cannot be contracted away so as to bind the appointing authority to retain a minor officer or employee for a definite, fixed period.” One of the cases cited by the court in support of its conclusions in that case was Kirkpatrick v. City of Monroe, supra. In Garnier v. Louisiana Milk Commission, 200 La. 594 , 8 So.2d 611 , it was held that the state milk commission in employing a secretary had no authority to fix by resolution the term of the secretary’s office, and hence the commission could, notwithstanding its contrac