* * * * * * * * BELSOME, J., CONCURS IN PART AND DISSENTS IN PART. I respectfully concur with the majority s finding that Mr. Parfait was entitled
|
|
- Kristopher O’Neal’
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 TERRELL PARFAIT VERSUS TRANSOCEAN OFFSHORE, INC., AND SHELL OIL PRODUCTS CO. NO CA-1271 COURT OF APPEAL FOURTH CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA BELSOME, J., CONCURS IN PART AND DISSENTS IN PART. I respectfully concur with the majority s finding that Mr. Parfait was entitled to a jury trial. Additionally, I respectfully concur with the majority s decision to absolve Shell of liability, pursuant to the jury s determination that the Rather was seaworthy. With regard to the majority s determination that the trial court s limitation of the cross-examination of Mr. Parfait s experts did not amount to reversible error, I respectfully concur. Likewise, I respectfully concur with the majority s decision that the presentation of evidence of other drilling projects by Mr. Parfait was harmless error, if any. Finally, I also respectfully concur with the majority s finding that the jury s determination that the Rather was seaworthy had no effect with regard to the jury s finding of negligence on the part of Transocean. The majority correctly holds that a reasonable basis exists upon which the jury could have found that Transocean acted negligently, as Jones Act negligence and unseaworthiness are separate and distinct causes of action with differing standards of proof, a principal that has been recognized by both the United States and Louisiana Supreme Courts, as well as this Court. See, e.g., Usner v. Luckenbach Overseas Corp., 400 U.S. 494, 498, 91 S.Ct. 514, 517, 27 L.Ed. 2d 562 (1971); Griffin v. LeCompte, 471 So.2d 1382, 1387 (La.1985); Wright v. Ocean Drilling and Exploration Co., 461 So.2d 1084,
2 1089 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1984)( Theories of unseaworthiness and negligence are two separate and distinct basis of liability....`[i]n view of the decisions in this court over the last 15 years, we can find no room for argument as to what the law is. What has evolved is a complete divorcement of unseaworthiness liability from concepts of negligence. )(quoting Mitchell v. Trawler Racer, Inc., 362 U.S. 539, 551, 80 S.Ct. 926, (1960))(emphasis in original). 1 Accordingly, without delving into the extremely speculative issue of whether or not handrails should have been installed on the elevated platform, it is clear that the jury could have determined that Transocean acted negligently in any number of ways, thereby causing and subsequently exacerbating Mr. Parfait s injuries, independently of any issues regarding the Rather s alleged unseaworthiness. For instance, Anthony Dorsey, the assistant driller on duty the day Mr. Parfait suffered his injuries, testified at trial that he had previously performed work with tongs from the vessel floor rather than from the elevated platform; thus, the jury could have determined that Transocean was negligent in failing to instruct Mr. Parfait as to a method by which the tongs could be operated from the floor rather than from the elevated platform, or that Transocean was negligent in failing to establish a means by which Mr. Parfait could perform his work on the deck level, as opposed to the added hazard of operating the tongs from the elevated platform. 2 1 Other examples of courts upholding this principle are as follows: Olsen v. American S.S. Co., 176 F.3d 891, 894, 2000 A.M.C. 90 (6th Cir. 1999)(stating that a seaman has three causes of action available to him: first, an action for maintenance and cure; second, an action for unseaworthiness; and third, a negligence action under the Jones Act); Springborn v. American Commercial Barge Lines, Inc., 767 F.2d 89, 100 (5th Cir. 1985)(finding that [w]hile the facts that give rise to unseaworthiness claims sometimes support Jones Act negligence claims, each is a distinct claim ); Chisholm v. Sabine Towing & Transp. Co., Inc., 679 F.2d 60, 62 (5th Cir. 1982)( Jones Act negligence and unseaworthiness are two separate and distinct claims....this court recognizes [these] two different standards of causation. ); Watson v. Oceaneering Intern., Inc., 387 F.Supp.2d 385, 390 (D. Del. 2005)( Under the Jones Act, a seaman can maintain a cause of action where an employer's failure to exercise reasonable care causes a subsequent injury even where the employer's negligence did not render the ship unseaworthy. )(quoting Ferrara v. A&V Fishing, Inc., 99 F.3d 449, 453, 2005 A.M.C (1st Cir. 1996)) (emphasis added). 2 Upon direct examination by Darryl Phillips, Mr. Dorsey s testimony regarding his experience working with tongs from the deck or vessel floor is as follows (emphasis added):
3 The jury also could have concluded that Transocean acted negligently by not providing or requiring Mr. Parfait to wear a safety harness (or some other type of fall arrest device) on the platform, which the jury could have determined was not an appurtenance to the vessel and therefore did not have any effect on the Rather s seaworthiness. Additionally, the jury could have found that Transocean was negligent in ordering Mr. Parfait to perform his duties from the workstands when he had not previously worked with tongs on an elevated platform, although he had been employed with Transocean for approximately three years. Finally, the jury could have also determined that Transocean s insistence upon returning Mr. Parfait to the vessel immediately following his surgery, rather than allowing him to remain under a physician s care in the hospital until he fully recovered, played a significant role in his subsequent infection and resulting surgeries. 3 Therefore, the Q: Okay. Isn t it ---isn t it easier to operate and to latch the pipe if you re doing it on the deck level and not on an elevated surface? A: I think it takes the same amount. Personally, having operated tongs myself, it takes the same amount of force. Q: Not force. Let s talk about the ability to do the job. I mean, if you re ---if you re working from a platform that s four feet high, you ve got to watch out for the edge, [be]cause there are no there are no railings around this thing, am I correct, sir? A: You re correct. Q: Okay. So, you ve got to not only operate the tong, you ve got to watch out for stepping on the edge, right? A: That s correct. Q: So, if --- but if you re on the deck, or floor, if you re on the deck you don t have to worry about that, you can move around with relative safety, correct? A: That s correct. Q: The elevated platform creates an additional hazard, a fall hazard, doesn t it? A: That s correct. Q: Okay. And it s safer to do the job...from the deck, rather than doing it from the elevated platform? A: I won t argue with that. Q: Okay. A: I agree with that. 3 The jury could have also determined that Transocean, by transporting Mr. Parfait back to the vessel in an apparent effort to avoid reporting a lost time accident, failed in their duty to take reasonable care under the circumstances and therefore acted negligently by exacerbating Mr. Parfait s injuries. Gautreaux v. Scurlock Marine, Inc., 107 F.3d 331, (5 th Cir. 1997)(holding that pursuant to the Jones Act, the duty of care owed by an employer to an employee is the duty to take reasonable care under the circumstances). We also note that no physician attended to Mr. Parfait when Transocean returned him to the Rather immediately after his surgery; the vessel only had a medic on board for this purpose.
4 jury could have and likely did find that Transocean was negligent for numerous reasons other than the presence or absence of handrails on the elevated platform; indeed, the jury s finding that the Rather was seaworthy supports this position. For this reason, I also agree with the majority s application of Brunner v. Maritime Overseas Corp., 779 F.2d 296 (5 th Cir. 1986) to the facts of this case. Like Brunner, in the case sub judice, a vessel owner s negligence and lack of reasonable care resulted in an unsafe condition, which caused an employee s injuries. Simply because Mr. Parfait s fall was not the result of an injury-causing foreign substance, the findings of Brunner are not thereby rendered inapposite, as the other dissenting opinion asserts. Likewise, I disagree with the dissent s assertion that the majority s application of Gautreaux v. Scurlock Marine, Inc., 107 F.3d 331, 1997 A.M.C (5th Cir. 1997) to the instant case is erroneous. Negligently failing to properly train an employee, the plaintiff s allegation in Gautreaux, is analogous to negligently instructing an employee who has not previously operated tongs from an elevated platform to do so when the same operation could have been performed from the floor. Moreover, in Gautreaux, the Fifth Circuit affirmed a determination of damages that was the result of a jury s finding that the vessel on which Mr. Gautreaux worked was seaworthy, but that his employer was negligent, precisely the scenario in the instant case. 4 Gautreaux, 107 F.3d 331, 339. It is unclear why the dissenting opinion asserts that Gautreaux stands for the proposition that the standard of care to be attributed to either an employer or an employee [in a Jones Act case of negligence] is [not] anything different than ordinary prudence under the circumstances, ; the majority s opinion does not dispute this proposition. 4 The Court in Gautreaux affirmed the district court s determination of the amount of damages, vacated the district court s judgment as to comparative fault (the jury assigned 95% of the fault to Mr. Gautreaux s employer and 5% of the fault to Mr. Gautreaux), and remanded the case for a determination of the comparative fault, if any, of Mr. Gautreaux. Gautreaux, 107
5 Finally, the dissenting opinion erroneously maintains that the resolution of the instant case turns on the vessel s lack of handrails coupled with the jury s finding of seaworthiness; to the contrary, the crux of this case involves negligence on the part of Transocean that caused and subsequently exacerbated Mr. Parfait s injuries, and not the presence or absence of handrails. With respect to the issue of damages, I respectfully dissent from the majority s decision to drastically reduce the award for general damages. It is a well-settled principle under Louisiana law that the factfinder is vested with wide discretion with regard to an award for general damages, and that such awards are not to be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of that vast discretion. Youn v. Maritime Overseas Corp., 623 So.2d 1257, 1261 (La. 1993). In Youn, the Louisiana Supreme Court observed: The discretion vested in the trier of fact is great, and even vast, so that an appellate court should rarely disturb an award of general damages. Reasonable persons frequently disagree about the measure of damages in a particular case. It is only when the award is, in either direction, beyond that which a reasonable trier of fact could assess for the effects of the particular injury to the particular plaintiff under the particular circumstances that the appellate court should increase or reduce the award. Id. The majority s opinion that despite [Mr. Parfait s] physical and emotional constraints, 5 he is able to perform the daily activities of his life, including dressing, bathing and feeding himself, cooking, cleaning and driving a vehicle and that Mr. Parfait has been able to maintain a relationship with his fiancée and actively participate in the lives of his three children is not a sufficient basis upon which to drastically reduce the jury s $1,000,000 award for general damages to a mere $300,000. Louisiana jurisprudence clearly dictates that appellate courts may F.3d at 339 (emphasis added). It should be reiterated that the jury apportioned 0% of the fault in this case to Mr. Parfait, a finding which neither Shell nor Transocean appealed. 5 The majority specifically acknowledges that Mr. Parfait will continue to suffer pain and discomfort for the rest of his life ; that he will be limited to sedentary activities ; that in
6 only reduce an award for general damages when the award is higher than an amount which a reasonable factfinder could determine for the effects of the particular injury to the particular plaintiff under the particular circumstances of the case. Reck v. Stevens, 373 So.2d 498, 501 (La. 1979); Suire v. LCS Corrections Services, Inc., , pp. 5-6, (La.App. 3 Cir. 2006), 930 So.2d 221, The majority has cited no authority to support its assertion that the jury s award in this case is beyond that which any rational finder of fact could have determined to be appropriate under these particular circumstances. Therefore, I cannot agree that the jury abused its discretion in making the general damages award, and would accordingly let the $1,000,000 award stand. Finally, I respectfully dissent from the majority s determination that the trial court erred in excluding evidence related to Mr. Parfait s previous injury. It is within the trial court s discretion to exclude evidence if its prejudicial value outweighs the probative value, even if the evidence is relevant. See, e.g., Hebert v. addition to being permanently physically disabled, Mr. Parfait cannot participate in his favorite activities, fishing, hunting, and bowling; and that Mr. Parfait suffers from acute depression. 6 Moreover, this Court, in Harvey v. Cole, , p (La.App. 4 Cir. 1/23/02), 808 So.2d 771, , a suit resulting from injuries sustained in an automobile accident by three plaintiffs, upheld all general and special damages awarded to plaintiff Randolph Polk. The awards totaled $2,075, for back, knee and neck injuries that Mr. Polk sustained in the accident. Id. Regarding the extremely large award, this Court stated: we find that the awards for general damage awards [sic], although very high, are not so excessive as to constitute an abuse of the great, even vast, discretion afforded to the trier of fact in the assessment of general damages. Id. (emphasis supplied). As a result of the accident, Mr. Polk had one lumbar fusion surgery, suffered a cervical herniated disc and torn lateral meniscus in the right knee, and incurred a 15 to 20 percent total body disability as a result of the accident. Id. In Mr. Parfait s case, he also suffered a torn medial meniscus, but not only in one knee, as did Randolph Polk, but in both knees. Mr. Parfait underwent not one surgery, as did Mr. Polk, but five surgeries on his wrist, in addition to undergoing extensive physical therapy. Moreover, the majority specifically acknowledges that Mr. Parfait is totally and permanently physically disabled, not 15 to 20 percent disabled, as Mr. Polk was in Harvey. By any standard, Mr. Parfait suffered greater injuries and pain and suffering, as well as complete and total disability, than did the plaintiff in the Harvey case, wherein this Court did not hesitate to uphold an award in excess of two million dollars. Finally, it is important to note that this Court in Harvey upheld all general and special damages awarded to each of the three plaintiffs, reducing only a general damage award to plaintiff Leroy Treadwell because he did not establish through medical testimony that the herniated discs in his cervical spine were related to the....accident, Id.; such is not the scenario in the instant case. Accordingly, the same deference should accordingly be afforded the trial court in this case, and the general and special damages rightfully awarded to Mr. Parfait should remain undisturbed.
7 Angelle, 600 So.2d 832 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1992); La. Code Evid. art Additionally, the cases cited by the majority in support of their contention that the trial court erred by excluding evidence regarding Mr. Parfait s prior injury and claims are inapposite to the facts of the instant case. First, the majority notes that Ronquillo v. Belle Chase Marine Transportation, Inc., 629 So.2d 1359, 1362 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1993) stands for the proposition that evidence regarding prior claims and injuries may be admissible for credibility purposes and/or to establish a causal relationship between the present disability and the previous accident. In this case, Mr. Parfait did not claim that any of his injuries on the Rather aggravated or were related to any of the injuries from his previous accident. Moreover, Mr. Parfait was not suffering from depression at the time of the accident. Finally, Mr. Parfait was not, as was the Plaintiff in Ronquillo, undergoing treatment for any of his previous injuries at the time of the accident on the Rather. Ronquillo, 629 So.2d at Additionally, the physicians who evaluated the Plaintiff in Ronquillo offered conflicting views as to whether or not the Plaintiff s depression had resolved prior to the injury at issue. Id. at This Court ultimately concluded in Ronquillo that [t]he jury could have believed that plaintiff s psychological injury his depression was a life-long condition. Id. at Thus, it is equally likely that the jury in this case found that Mr. Parfait s depression was not a life-long condition, but that it had, in fact, been resolved subsequent to treatment for his prior injuries, and that he would not have suffered from depression again but for his injuries sustained on the Rather. Likewise, Paige v. Guidry, 506 So.2d 854, 857 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1987), the other case cited by the majority, can also be distinguished from the facts of the case at bar. In Paige, the Plaintiff submitted claims for the same medical expenses that had been submitted for recovery in two prior settlements, clearly putting the Plaintiff s credibility at issue. By contrast, Mr. Parfait s physical injuries resulting
8 from his fall on the Rather were completely separate from his previous injuries; he made no duplicative claims in this case that would put his credibility at issue. With regard to his psychological injuries, as previously noted, the jury could have concluded that his depression had resolved itself prior to his injuries on the Rather, as he was not being treated for depression at the time of his accident on the Rather. Therefore, I agree with the trial court s holding that evidence of Mr. Parfait s prior injuries would have been unfairly prejudicial; accordingly, I do not believe that the trial court erred in granting Mr. Parfait s motion in limine excluding evidence of Mr. Parfait s prior accident and disability. Additionally, because I do not agree that the trial court committed legal error, I do not agree that a de novo review of the record is necessary in this case. Likewise, I respectfully dissent from the majority s reduction of Mr. Parfait s future medical expenses and future wage loss awards; I cannot say that the jury was manifestly erroneous in making these awards. The majority notes that Mr. Parfait s expert, Dr. Rice, estimated that Mr. Parfait s future medical expenses would be $477, The majority criticizes this figure because the estimate was based on Mr. Parfait s continuing his present medications and doctor visits for his future life expectancy with no reductions over time. The actual amount awarded by the trial court for future medical expenses, however, was only $250, Yet the majority wishes to further reduce this award, inexplicably, to only $100, With regard to the majority s reduction of the award for future wage loss, I also disagree. After recovering from his previous injury, Mr. Parfait returned to work several years later with Transocean at a much higher salary and with the potential to significantly increase his pay level. Moreover, the majority acknowledges that a promotion to derrick man was imminent, had Mr. Parfait not
9 suffered the injuries resulting from his fall on the Rather. 7 It was within the jury s discretion to accept Dr. Rice s estimates for Mr. Parfait s future wage loss and make an award accordingly. Therefore, I would not reduce the jury s award for future wage loss. 8 In conclusion, although we cannot say with certainty which particular act of negligence the jury attributed to Transocean, the record is replete with substantial facts that support a finding of negligence against Transocean. Because the trial court did not erroneously exclude evidence of Mr. Parfait s previous accident and claims, the majority s de novo review was inappropriate in this case, particularly because the de novo review was used as a vehicle to mention Mr. Parfait s previous settlement the basis upon which the majority deems it appropriate to reduce Mr. Parfait s award for future wage loss. Additionally, the majority substitutes its judgment for that of the factfinder by declaring that $300, is a suitable amount for general damages, thereby reducing the award by more than half (and reducing the future medical expenses award), because Mr. Parfait might recover from his depression, and because he can clothe, feed, and drive himself. In reducing these awards, the majority supersedes the trial court s vast discretion and denies Mr. Parfait the damages that were rightfully awarded to him by the jury. 7 As the majority notes, Mr. Parfait s economist estimated his future work life expectancy of years, while the defendants expert estimated it at 9.8 years; it seems clear that Mr. Parfait would have been able to work for at least 10 more years, if not more, but for the injuries he suffered on the Rather. 8 The majority reduced the award for future wage loss because Mr. Parfait recovered a substantial amount for future loss of wages as a result of his accident in The majority is thus of the opinion that to award the amount suggested by Dr. Rice ($5, more than was actually awarded by the trial court) would effectively allow Mr. Parfait to recover twice for future lost wages. As previously stated, I do not agree that the trial court erred in excluding evidence of Mr. Parfait s previous accident and injury; therefore, no de novo review is necessary in this case.
Case 2:15-cv CJB-JCW Document 39 Filed 05/25/16 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA VERSUS NO:
Case 2:15-cv-01658-CJB-JCW Document 39 Filed 05/25/16 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA BRIAN MATTHEWS CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO: 15-1658 WEEKS MARINE, INC. SECTION:
More informationSTATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 07-203 ROSEMARY WATERS VERSUS BROOKSHIRE GROCERY COMPANY ************** APPEAL FROM THE ALEXANDRIA CITY COURT PARISH OF RAPIDES, DOCKET NO. 101,398 HONORABLE
More informationSTATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT ************
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 07-805 TOBY P. ARMENTOR VERSUS SAFEWAY INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL. ************ APPEAL FROM THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, NO.
More informationENRIQUE MADRID NO CA-0044 VERSUS COURT OF APPEAL AEP RIVER OPERATIONS LLC, ET AL. FOURTH CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * * *
ENRIQUE MADRID VERSUS AEP RIVER OPERATIONS LLC, ET AL. * * * * * * * * * * * NO. 2014-CA-0044 COURT OF APPEAL FOURTH CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA APPEAL FROM 25TH JDC, PARISH OF PLAQUEMINES NO. 56-00465,
More information6.1 Jones Act - Unseaworthiness General Instruction (Comparative Negligence Defense) The Plaintiff seeks to recover under a federal statute known as
6.1 Jones Act - Unseaworthiness General Instruction (Comparative Negligence Defense) The Plaintiff seeks to recover under a federal statute known as the Jones Act. The Jones Act provides a remedy to a
More informationINSURANCE COMPANY KRISTEN KRAUS AND
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NO 2010 CA 1164 CLIFFORD RAY JACKSON AND BERNICE JACKSON VERSUS i CONNOR BOURG UNITRIN AUTO AND HOME INSURANCE COMPANY KRISTEN
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Case: 16-30481 Document: 00513946906 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/10/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT VIRGIE ANN ROMERO MCBRIDE, United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NO 2008 CA 2455 OMAR FERRER VERSUS
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NO 2008 CA 2455 OMAR FERRER VERSUS CAITLIN HARWOOD AND STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY Judgment Rendered June 12 2009 On Appeal
More informationSTEPHEN J. WINDHORST JUDGE
JEFFREY L. SOUDELIER, JR. VERSUS PBC MANAGEMENT, INC., FLORIDA MARINE TRANSPORTERS, INC. AND FLORIDA MARINE, LLC NO. 16-CA-39 FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF LOUISIANA ON APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY-NINTH
More informationSTATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT ************
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 13-178 BETTY ISAAC VERSUS REMINGTON COLLEGE ************ APPEAL FROM THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, NO. 2010-4910, DIV. E HONORABLE
More information* * * * * * * * * * * * * APPEAL FROM CIVIL DISTRICT COURT, ORLEANS PARISH NO , DIVISION A-5 HONORABLE CAROLYN GILL-JEFFERSON, JUDGE
ELNORA HASBERRY, WIFE OF/AND EUGENE HASBERRY, SR. VERSUS RTA, REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY, TMSEL, INC., AND/OR TRANSIT MANAGEMENT OF SOUTHEAST LOUISIANA, INC., DIESEL, INC. AND/OR CLARENCE MORET AND JOHN
More informationSTATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT ************
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 06-1117 JOHN POMIER VERSUS ROBERT MORELAND, ET AL. ************ APPEAL FROM THE SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF IBERIA, NO. 88003-D HONORABLE
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS LISA DELK, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED April 26, 2011 v No. 295857 Wayne Circuit Court STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE LC No. 07-727377-NF INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Joseph McQueen : : v. : No. 1523 C.D. 2014 : Argued: February 9, 2015 Temple University Hospital, : Temple University Hospital, Inc. : : Appeal of: Temple University
More informationSTATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT ************
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 05-0019 CAROL DEJEAN VERSUS ST. CHARLES GAMING COMPANY, INC. ************ APPEAL FROM THE FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF CALCASIEU, NO.
More informationFOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE # 80 FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE # 80 FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA The Opinions handed down on the 19th day of October, 2004, are as follows: BY KIMBALL, J.: 2004- C-0181 LAURA E. TRUNK
More informationJames McNamara v. Kmart Corp
2010 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 5-14-2010 James McNamara v. Kmart Corp Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 09-2216 Follow this
More informationMIDLAND FUNDING LLC NO CA-0659 VERSUS COURT OF APPEAL FRANKIE J. KELLY FOURTH CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * * *
MIDLAND FUNDING LLC VERSUS FRANKIE J. KELLY * * * * * * * * * * * NO. 2011-CA-0659 COURT OF APPEAL FOURTH CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA APPEAL FROM FIRST CITY COURT OF NEW ORLEANS NO. 2008-51454, SECTION
More informationMeredith, Graeff, Arthur,
Circuit Court for Montgomery County Civil No.: 413502 UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 1818 September Term, 2016 TRACY BROWN-RUBY v. MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND Meredith, Graeff,
More informationJERYD ZITO NO CA-0218 VERSUS COURT OF APPEAL ADVANCED EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES, INC. AND EMPIRE INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY FOURTH CIRCUIT
JERYD ZITO VERSUS ADVANCED EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES, INC. AND EMPIRE INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY * * * * * * * * * * * NO. 2011-CA-0218 COURT OF APPEAL FOURTH CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA APPEAL FROM 25TH
More informationSTATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL 2007 CA 1386 HELEN MATTHEWS VERSUS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION FIRST CIRCUIT SHARON MACK
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2007 CA 1386 HELEN MATTHEWS VERSUS SHARON MACK On Appeal from the 20th Judicial District Court Parish of East Feliciana Louisiana
More informationJACQUELINE ARIEL MURRAY
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NO 2006 CA 2154 JACQUELINE ARIEL MURRAY VERSUS MICHAEL P RYAN AND ANY LIABILITY INSURER S OF MICHAEL P RYAN Si LIABILITY
More informationSTATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT **********
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 14-617 TRACY BOWIE VERSUS WESTSIDE HABILITATION CENTER ********** FROM THE OFFICE OF WORKERS COMPENSATION, DISTRICT 02 PARISH OF RAPIDES, NO. 14-00992
More informationIN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY MARIA RIZZI, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) JUDITH MASON, ) ) Defendant. ) Date Submitted: April 2, 2002 Date Decided: May 22, 2002
More informationJudgment Rendered September
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NUMBER 2006 CA 2351 ADRIAN SLAUGHTER VERSUS SAFEWAY INSURANCE COMPANY OF LOUISIANA ET AL Judgment Rendered September 14 2007
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. No ROBERT HASTY, Plaintiff - Appellant,
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 03-30884 United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED November 2, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk ROBERT HASTY, Plaintiff - Appellant,
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION DANIEL E. BECNEL, III VERSUS TIMOTHY DESMOND, DESCO AUTO BODY & PAINT, L.L.C. AND THEIR LIABILITY INSURANCE CARRIER, WESTERN HERITAGE INSURANCE COMPANY * * * * * * * * *
More information* * * * * * * * * * * * * APPEAL FROM CIVIL DISTRICT COURT, ORLEANS PARISH NO , DIVISION E-9 HONORABLE GERALD P. FEDOROFF, JUDGE * * * * * *
DONSHEKIA MERCADEL VERSUS PATRICK CONAGHAN, CITY OF NEW ORLEANS AND INTERSTATE PROPERTIES, INC. NO. 2000-CA-0801 COURT OF APPEAL FOURTH CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA APPEAL FROM CIVIL DISTRICT COURT, ORLEANS
More informationCourt of Appeals. First District of Texas
Opinion issued April 22, 2010. In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-08-00647-CV DIAMOND OFFSHORE MANAGEMENT CO. AND DIAMOND OFFSHORE SERVICES CO., Appellants V. JONATHAN CUMMINGS,
More informationSTATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 04-1623 DONALD A. CROSS AND CYNTHIA C. CROSS VERSUS TIMBER TRAILS APARTMENTS, T.F. MANAGEMENT, INC., THOMAS L. FRYE, AND TIMBER TRAILS APARTMENTS II, A
More informationSTATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT EARL LEE SCOTT AND FELICIA A. SCOTT JAMES RAY ROBERTS AND STATE OF LA, THRU THE DOTD, ET AL.
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 03-435 EARL LEE SCOTT AND FELICIA A. SCOTT VERSUS JAMES RAY ROBERTS AND STATE OF LA, THRU THE DOTD, ET AL. ********** APPEAL FROM THE THIRTY-SIXTH JUDICIAL
More informationSTATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT ************
STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS WADE KNOTT, JR. STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 04-1594 ************ APPEAL FROM THE SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF ST. MARTIN, NO. 99-193524 HONORABLE
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS MICHAEL P. HUGHES, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED October 26, 2010 v No. 293354 Mackinac Circuit Court SHEPLER, INC., LC No. 07-006370-NO and Defendant-Appellee, CNA
More informationSTATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT **********
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 13-149 DIANNE DENLEY, ET AL. VERSUS SHERRI B. BERLIN, ET AL. ********** APPEAL FROM THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF CADDO, NO. 536,162 HONORABLE
More informationDARREN SHARPER NO CA-0336 VERSUS COURT OF APPEAL THE NEW ORLEANS SAINTS FOURTH CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * * *
DARREN SHARPER VERSUS THE NEW ORLEANS SAINTS * * * * * * * * * * * NO. 2014-CA-0336 COURT OF APPEAL FOURTH CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA APPEAL FROM THE OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION NO. 2011-10435, DISTRICT
More informationSTATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT **********
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 16-61 ERNEST GUIDRY, ET UX. VERSUS ABC INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL. ********** APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY-SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF ST. LANDRY,
More informationFIRST CIRCUIT 2006 CA 2049 VERSUS. Attorneys for Plaintiff Appellant Richard Zentner. Defendant Appellee. Seacor Marine Inc
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2006 CA 2049 RICHARD ZENTNER VERSUS SEACOR MARINE INC On Appeal from the 16th Judicial District Court Parish of St Mary Louisiana Docket No 108 321 Division
More informationSAMPLE BRIEF IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY LARRY ARMSTRONG, ) ) Appellee, ) Court of Appeals No. 2016-1111 ) ) -vs. ) Trial Court No. 2016-2222 ) JOHN ELLINGTON, ) ) Appellant.
More informationNo. 43,946-CA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * Versus * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Before STEWART, DREW and LOLLEY, JJ.
Judgment rendered January 14, 2009. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 2166, LSA-CCP. No. 43,946-CA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * GERALD
More informationSTATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT **********
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 14-1026 MARK BALDWIN VERSUS CLEANBLAST, LLC ********** APPEAL FROM THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF ACADIA, NO. 2013-10251 HONORABLE THOMAS
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS SPECTRUM HEALTH HOSPITALS, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED February 21, 2017 v No. 329907 Kent Circuit Court FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, LC No. 15-000926-AV Defendant-Appellee.
More informationNO CA-0232 RUSSELL KELLY D/B/A AFFORDABLE HOUSING CONTRACTORS, LLC COURT OF APPEAL VERSUS FOURTH CIRCUIT THOMAS H.
RUSSELL KELLY D/B/A AFFORDABLE HOUSING CONTRACTORS, LLC THOMAS H. O'NEIL D/B/A 3RD STREET PROPERTIES, LLC NO. 2011-CA-0232 COURT OF APPEAL FOURTH CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA THOMAS H. O'NEIL, BIENVILLE
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. v. Case No. 5D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED WILLIAM J. VICKERS, Appellant, v. Case
More informationCase 2:13-cv SM-MBN Document 417 Filed 11/20/15 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
Case 2:13-cv-04811-SM-MBN Document 417 Filed 11/20/15 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA CALVIN HOWARD, ET AL. CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 13-4811 c/w 13-6407 and 14-1188
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION JAMIE FENN-WELLS VERSUS LAUREN LELLE AND PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE COMPANY * * * * * * * * * * * NO. 2014-CA-0543 COURT OF APPEAL FOURTH CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA APPEAL
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. v. Case No. 5D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF
More informationv. Record No OPINION BY JUSTICE ELIZABETH B. LACY April 23, 2004 ALBERT R. MARSHALL
Present: All the Justices JONATHAN R. DANDRIDGE v. Record No. 031457 OPINION BY JUSTICE ELIZABETH B. LACY April 23, 2004 ALBERT R. MARSHALL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HENRICO COUNTY Gary A. Hicks, Judge
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS ROBERT E. THOMAS and CAROLYN J. THOMAS, UNPUBLISHED November 27, 2001 Plaintiffs-Appellants, V No. 226035 Calhoun Circuit Court LAKEVIEW MEADOWS, LTD., LC No. 98-002864-NO
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ) ) ) ) ) ) FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA SHANE ROSHTO and NATALIE ROSHTO VERSUS TRANSOCEAN, LTD and BP, PLC CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:10-cv-01156 SECTION B (JUDGE LEMELLE MAGISTRATE 3 (KNOWLES
More informationDISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT JOSEPH BENJAMIN BLACK and ELIZABETH BLACK, Appellants, v. MERY COHEN, Appellee. No. 4D16-2485 [April 25, 2018] Appeal from the Circuit Court
More informationSTATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT **********
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 13-412 KIMBERLY COLLINS, INDIV., ET AL. VERSUS LOUISIANA STATE POLICE, ET AL. ********** APPEAL FROM THE FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF CALCASIEU,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE July 24, 2012 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE July 24, 2012 Session SUSAN DANIEL V. BRITTANY SMITH Appeal from the Circuit Court for Coffee County No. 35636 L. Craig Johnson, Judge No. M2011-00830-COA-R3-CV
More informationv. Record No OPINION BY JUSTICE BARBARA MILANO KEENAN March 5, 2004 GEORGE E. WALLACE
PRESENT: All the Justices MARGARET BARKLEY v. Record No. 030744 OPINION BY JUSTICE BARBARA MILANO KEENAN March 5, 2004 GEORGE E. WALLACE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF HAMPTON Norman Olitsky, Judge
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE August 10, 2007 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE August 10, 2007 Session PATTI T. HEATON v. SENTRY INSURANCE CO., ET AL. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Rutherford County No. 45858 Robert E. Corlew,
More informationSTATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT
MICHAEL GROS VERSUS FRED SETTOON, INC. STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 03-461 ********** APPEAL FROM THE SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF ST. MARTIN, NO. 97-58097 HONORABLE
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS KAREN HARRIS-HOLLOWAY, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED March 23, 2017 v No. 330644 Washtenaw Circuit Court AT&T SERVICES INC., and GREGORY LC No. 14-000111-NI LAURENCE
More informationDISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT FRANK BELLEZZA, Appellant, v. JAMES MENENDEZ and CRARY BUCHANAN, P.A., Appellees. No. 4D17-3277 [March 6, 2019] Appeal from the Circuit
More informationBEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. E KATHLEEN T. CORDRY, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT
BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. E812752 KATHLEEN T. CORDRY, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT HEALTHCOR HOLDING, INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT CONTINENTAL CASUALTY CO., CARRIER RESPONDENT OPINION
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. F111222 JUDITH WRIGHT, EMPLOYEE TWIN LAKES NURSING & REHABILITATION CENTER, EMPLOYER PACIFIC EMPLOYERS INSURANCE
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS MARILYN CHIRILUT and NICOLAE CHIRILUT, UNPUBLISHED November 23, 2010 Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross- Appellees, v No. 293750 Oakland Circuit Court WILLIAM BEAUMONT HOSPITAL,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA VERSUS NO CHERAMIE MARINE, LLC SECTION R (2) ORDER AND REASONS
Spaid v. Cheramie Marine L.L.C. Doc. 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA FREDERICK O. SPAID, II CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 16-14169 CHERAMIE MARINE, LLC SECTION R (2) ORDER AND REASONS
More informationSTATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT CA **********
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT CA 04-692 FRED LEE PERKINS VERSUS WURSTER OIL CORP., ET AL. ********** APPEAL FROM THE THIRTY-THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF ALLEN, NO. C-2001-088
More informationSubmitted January 24, 2019 Decided. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, Docket No. L
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PETER BALALAS, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED August 2, 2012 v No. 302540 Wayne Circuit Court STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY, LC No. 08-109599-NF Defendant-Appellant.
More information2006 CA STATE Of LOUISIANA. COURT Of APPEAL. first CIRCUIT LOTTIE MORGAN VERSUS. CITY Of BATON ROUGE AND PARISH Of EAST BATON ROUGE
STATE Of LOUISIANA COURT Of APPEAL first CIRCUIT 2006 CA 0158 LOTTIE MORGAN VERSUS CITY Of BATON ROUGE AND PARISH Of EAST BATON ROUGE On Appeal from the 19th Judicial District Court Parish of East Baton
More informationNO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 6 May Appeal by plaintiff from opinion and award filed 18 January
NO. COA02-470 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 6 May 2003 PHIL S. TAYLOR, Employee, Plaintiff, v. BRIDGESTONE/FIRESTONE, Employer, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, Carrier, Defendants. Appeal by plaintiff
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION RANDY WILLIAMS VERSUS IESI LA CORPORATION AND JOHN DOE STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 10-1517 ********** APPEAL FROM THE TWELFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT,
More informationAPPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIFTH DISTRICT. The plaintiff, Richard D. Ford, appeals from an order of the circuit court of Madison
Rule 23 order filed NO. 5-08-0185 January 22, 2010; Motion to publish granted IN THE February 17, 2010, corrected March 4, 2010. APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIFTH DISTRICT RICHARD D. FORD, ) Appeal from
More informationCharles Pratt v. New York & New Jersey Port Aut
2014 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 4-8-2014 Charles Pratt v. New York & New Jersey Port Aut Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No.
More informationHIEU PHUONG HOANG NO CA-0749 VERSUS COURT OF APPEAL THORTON SERVICES, INC., ET AL. FOURTH CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * * *
HIEU PHUONG HOANG VERSUS THORTON SERVICES, INC., ET AL. NO. 2015-CA-0749 COURT OF APPEAL FOURTH CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA APPEAL FROM CIVIL DISTRICT COURT, ORLEANS PARISH NO. 2011-11601, DIVISION N-8
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. AIDA BASCOPE, v. Plaintiff-Appellant, VANESSA KOVAC, and Defendant-Respondent,
More informationUNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, 2016 BOARD OF EDUCATION OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND
UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 2364 September Term, 2016 BOARD OF EDUCATION OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND v. DARLENE M. HAMILTON Wright, Leahy, Friedman, JJ. Opinion by Wright,
More informationKELSEY LANE COOPER, JR. NO CA-0868 AND GRACE YVONNE COOPER COURT OF APPEAL VERSUS FOURTH CIRCUIT BOUCHARD TRANSPORTATION STATE OF LOUISIANA
KELSEY LANE COOPER, JR. AND GRACE YVONNE COOPER VERSUS BOUCHARD TRANSPORTATION CONSOLIDATED WITH: * * * * * * * * * * * NO. 2012-CA-0868 COURT OF APPEAL FOURTH CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA CONSOLIDATED WITH:
More informationv No Wayne Circuit Court
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S ADEL ALI and EFADA ALI, Plaintiffs-Appellants, UNPUBLISHED October 16, 2018 and DEARBORN SPINE CENTER, PLLC, Intervening Plaintiff, v No. 339102
More informationKANDA CONSTRUCTION, LLC NO CA-1307 COURT OF APPEAL VERSUS AMARE GEBRE FOURTH CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * * *
KANDA CONSTRUCTION, LLC VERSUS AMARE GEBRE * * * * * * * * * * * NO. 2015-CA-1307 COURT OF APPEAL FOURTH CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA APPEAL FROM CIVIL DISTRICT COURT, ORLEANS PARISH NO. 2014-05569, DIVISION
More information* * * * * * * COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTS/EDWARD A. ALBERES, ET AL.
EDWARD ANTHONY ALBERES, ET AL. VERSUS ANCO INSULATIONS, INC., ET AL. * * * * * * * * * * * NO. 2013-CA-1549 COURT OF APPEAL FOURTH CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA APPEAL FROM CIVIL DISTRICT COURT, ORLEANS PARISH
More informationSTATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT WCA **********
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT WCA 05-933 DONALD J. SULLIVAN VERSUS PETROLEUM HELICOPTERS, INC. ********** APPEAL FROM THE OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION - # 4 PARISH OF LAFAYETTE,
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PASTOR IDELLA WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED February 2, 2016 v No. 323343 Kent Circuit Court NATIONAL INTERSTATE INSURANCE LC No. 13-002265-NO COMPANY, and
More informationCase 2:06-cv CJB-SS Document 29 Filed 01/12/2007 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA VERSUS NO:
Case 2:06-cv-00585-CJB-SS Document 29 Filed 01/12/2007 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA CLIFTON DREYFUS CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO: 06-585 ADVANCED MEDICAL OPTICS, INC.
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM v. Case No. 5D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2004 DONNA DEKLYEN, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D03-1480 TRUCKERS WORLD, INC., Appellee. / Opinion filed March 19, 2004 Appeal
More informationSTATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT JUSTIN DOUGLAS HENDERSON **********
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 03-747 JUSTIN DOUGLAS HENDERSON VERSUS BRIAN SELLERS, ET AL. ********** APPEAL FROM THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, NO. 994081
More informationSTATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT consolidated with **********
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 16-592 consolidated with 16-917 DWIGHT MINTON, ET UX. VERSUS GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY, ET AL. ********** APPEAL FROM THE FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
More informationSTATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT ************
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 08-340 ELSA GAJEWSKY, ET AL. VERSUS JOHN T. NING, M.D., ET AL. ************ APPEAL FROM THE THIRTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF VERNON, NO. 73,458
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Case: 17-30963 Document: 00514767049 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/19/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT DAVID J. RANDLE, Plaintiff - Appellant United States Court of Appeals Fifth
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Case: 15-60764 Document: 00513714839 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/12/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, United States Court of Appeals Fifth
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA VERSUS NO: MARQUETTE TRANSPORTATION
Case 2:16-cv-17825-JTM-KWR Document 75 Filed 01/03/19 Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA MARCUS LOMAX CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO: 16-17825 MARQUETTE TRANSPORTATION SECTION
More informationSTATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 18-167 MATTHEW A. HILLMAN VERSUS COREY SENECA ET AL. ************ APPEAL FROM THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, NO. C-2017-265
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS JACK E. POULSEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED June 8, 2017 v No. 331925 Kalamazoo Circuit Court SHANNON M. VISSER, LC No. 2014-000625-NI and Defendant-Appellee, STATE
More informationIn the Missouri Court of Appeals Western District
In the Missouri Court of Appeals Western District DAWN STEVENSON, v. Respondent, AQUILA FOREIGN QUALIFICATIONS CORP., Appellant. WD72214 OPINION FILED: December 21, 2010 Appeal from the Circuit Court of
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE December 12, 2001 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE December 12, 2001 Session CATHY L. HALL, ET AL. v. CITY OF GATLINBURG Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sevier County No. 99-793-III Rex Henry Ogle, Judge
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS RACHEL M. KALLMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED November 26, 2013 v No. 312457 Ingham Circuit Court JASON F. WHITAKER, LC No. 10-000247-NI Defendant-Appellee. Before:
More informationBEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. F HARL LEDFORD, EMPLOYEE SUPERIOR INDUSTRIES, EMPLOYER
BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. F404346 HARL LEDFORD, EMPLOYEE SUPERIOR INDUSTRIES, EMPLOYER CROCKETT ADJUSTMENT, CARRIER CLAIMANT RESPONDENT RESPONDENT OPINION FILED OCTOBER
More informationBEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. F PHILLIP ROGERS, EMPLOYEE AREA AGENCY ON AGING, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT NO.
BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. F210164 PHILLIP ROGERS, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT AREA AGENCY ON AGING, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT NO. 1 RISK MANAGEMENT SERVICES, CARRIER RESPONDENT NO.
More informationSTATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT SLAYTER TRUCKING COMPANIES, LLC **********
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 16-98 DAVID PAUL CROSS VERSUS SLAYTER TRUCKING COMPANIES, LLC ********** APPEAL FROM THE OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION - # 2 PARISH OF RAPIDES, NO. 14-02511
More informationNO. 46,840-CA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * * Versus * * * * * *
Judgment rendered March 14, 2012 Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 2166, La. C.C.P. NO. 46,840-CA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * * OMEKA
More informationSTATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT CA **********
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT CA 05-723 BETTY JEAN HARGROVE, ET AL. VERSUS MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD CO., ET AL. ********** APPEAL FROM THE THIRTY-FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH
More informationLewis Stokes v. American Airlines, Inc., et al., No. 2616, September Term, LAW OF THE CASE DOCTRINE - MANDATE RULE - WORKERS COMPENSATION CLAIM.
Lewis Stokes v. American Airlines, Inc., et al., No. 2616, September Term, 2000. LAW OF THE CASE DOCTRINE - MANDATE RULE - WORKERS COMPENSATION CLAIM. The circuit court violated the law of the case when
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA. JUDGE D. ARTHUR KELSEY v. Record No OCTOBER 7, 2003 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA Present: Judges Annunziata, Clements and Kelsey Argued at Salem, Virginia NOAH HORN WELL DRILLING AND HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE MIDWEST MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY JUDGE
More informationCase 1:07-cv JAL Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/04/2008 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 1:07-cv-21867-JAL Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/04/2008 Page 1 of 8 PULIYURUMPIL MATHEW THOMAS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 07-21867-CIV-LENARD/TORRES
More informationv. Record No OPINION BY JUSTICE DONALD W. LEMONS November 4, 2005 FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE Charles N.
Present: All the Justices SUSIE CAROL BUSSEY v. Record No. 050358 OPINION BY JUSTICE DONALD W. LEMONS November 4, 2005 E.S.C. RESTAURANTS, INC., t/a GOLDEN CORRAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF
More information