In a case highlighting the importance of carefully crafted real estate contracts, the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, upheld a trial court’s decision awarding stipulated damages and attorney’s fees to sellers in a failed all-cash real estate transaction.
The case centered on a failed real estate purchase agreement, underscoring the importance of understanding contractual obligations and the potential consequences of non-performance.
Case Background:
In a recent decision by the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Golden Nugget Lake Charles, LLC, emerged victorious in a slip and fall case brought forth by Carolyn A. Watts. The case revolved around Ms. Watts’ alleged injuries sustained from a fall on the casino’s premises.
Ms. Watts initially filed a petition claiming she slipped and fell on a wet floor within the Golden Nugget casino lobby. However, during her deposition, she clarified that the incident occurred on the boardwalk outside the casino while it was raining. Ms. Watts attributed her fall to the wet conditions and alleged injuries to her right shoulder, neck, and back.
Golden Nugget filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the accident took place outside the casino, on the boardwalk, during rainy conditions. They contended that Ms. Watts could not establish that the walkway posed a hazard or that Golden Nugget’s negligence contributed to the incident. They supported their motion with evidence, including Ms. Watts’ deposition transcript, surveillance video of the incident, and an affidavit from their Risk Manager confirming the rainy weather and lack of prior complaints about the boardwalk.
Navigating the workers’ compensation system can be overwhelming when you’ve been injured on the job. You may be tempted to accept a quick settlement to cover immediate medical bills and lost wages. However, it’s crucial to understand the long-term implications of such a decision. A recent Louisiana case highlights the importance of carefully considering settlement agreements in workers’ compensation claims.
Benny Hernandez was injured at work in 2014. He initially filed a workers’ compensation claim, represented by an attorney, and reached a settlement with his employer and its insurer. The settlement was approved by a workers’ compensation judge, and Hernandez’s claim was dismissed with prejudice.
However, a year later, Hernandez filed another claim related to the same injury. His employer and insurer responded with a peremptory exception of res judicata, arguing that the matter had already been resolved. The court agreed and dismissed Hernandez’s second claim.
In a recent Louisiana Court of Appeal ruling, the Fourth Circuit reinstated Officer Isaiah Shannon to the New Orleans Police Department (NOPD) with back pay and benefits after a contentious dismissal. This case highlights the complexities surrounding police conduct, the use of force, and the importance of due process.
The incident that led to Officer Shannon’s termination occurred in August 2013 during a traffic stop that escalated into a car chase. Following a collision, a physical altercation broke out, and Officer Shannon discharged his weapon. The passenger fled unharmed.
The core of the dispute revolved around whether Officer Shannon fired his weapon from inside or outside the suspect’s vehicle. Officer Shannon maintained he shot from inside the car, while witnesses and investigators contended he fired from outside. The absence of bullet marks inside the vehicle and video surveillance footage were cited as evidence against Officer Shannon’s account.
A recent decision from the Louisiana Court of Appeal has shed light on the nuanced boundary between whistleblowing and misconduct in the workplace. The case, Melancon v. Town of Amite City, involved a police officer terminated for running unauthorized criminal background checks and lying about it. While the officer claimed he was acting as a whistleblower, the court ultimately upheld his termination, raising important questions about the limits of whistleblower protection and the importance of adhering to internal policies and procedures.
Gerald Melancon, a police officer in Amite City, Louisiana, was fired after it was discovered he had used police databases to run unauthorized background checks on various individuals, including city council members, fellow officers, and even his own wife. Melancon claimed he was investigating potential corruption within the department and that he had reported his concerns to his superiors and the FBI. He argued his termination was retaliation for his whistleblowing activities.
However, the evidence showed that Melancon had repeatedly lied about conducting background checks during the department’s internal investigation. The police chief testified that Melancon was fired primarily for his dishonesty and unauthorized use of the databases, not for any alleged whistleblowing.
In a recent Louisiana Court of Appeal decision, a case involving a police shooting during an arrest attempt highlighted the complexities of qualified immunity for law enforcement officers. The case, Marshall v. Sandifer, centered around Ervin Marshall, who was shot by a state trooper while attempting to evade arrest. The court ultimately upheld the trooper’s immunity, but the decision provides important insights into the limits and application of this legal protection.
In 2010, Louisiana State Trooper Jared Sandifer and other officers were attempting to arrest Ervin Marshall on an outstanding warrant. They located him at his girlfriend’s apartment, and after obtaining permission to enter, they conducted a search. Trooper Sandifer found Marshall hiding in a closet. When Marshall made a sudden movement, Trooper Sandifer, fearing for his safety, shot him in the abdomen.
Marshall later sued Trooper Sandifer, the Louisiana State Police, and its superintendent, alleging negligence and excessive force. The defendants claimed immunity under Louisiana law, arguing that Trooper Sandifer’s actions were discretionary and within the scope of his lawful duties.
A recent Louisiana Court of Appeal decision has underscored the importance of adhering to legal formalities when gifting significant assets, even within a romantic relationship. The case involved a dispute over the ownership of a thoroughbred racehorse, highlighting the specific requirements for making a valid donation under Louisiana law.
Wesley Hawley, a racehorse trainer, purchased a filly named Clever Sue. He later placed his then-fiancee, Denise Reed’s, name on the horse’s registration papers. When the relationship ended, Hawley transferred the title back to himself. Reed sued, claiming ownership of the horse and the right to its prize money.
The trial court ruled in favor of Hawley, and the Court of Appeal upheld the decision.
A recent Louisiana Court of Appeal decision, Brimmer v. Eagle Family Dental, Inc., has underscored the critical procedural steps involved in bringing dental malpractice claims in the state. The case highlights the necessity of first presenting claims against qualified healthcare providers to a medical review panel before filing a lawsuit. Let’s delve into the specifics of this case and its implications for dental malpractice litigation in Louisiana.
Case Summary
Aurielle Brimmer received dental treatment at Eagle Family Dental, Inc. She subsequently developed complications that sheF attributed to the dental procedure. Believing she had suffered dental malpractice, Ms. Brimmer bypassed the medical review panel process and directly filed a lawsuit against Eagle Family Dental.
In a heart-wrenching case involving the sexual assault of a patient at an outpatient psychiatric treatment facility, the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, recently affirmed a summary judgment that dismissed claims against two individual owners/officers of the facility. The decision, handed down in Sam v. Genesis Behavioral Hospital, underscores the legal complexities surrounding personal liability for corporate officers in cases of negligence. Let’s delve into the details of the case and its implications.
Facts and Procedural History
The plaintiff, Jessica Charles, attended an outpatient program at Genesis Behavioral Hospital. Tragically, she was lured off the premises by another patient, Dave Carter, Jr., and was subsequently raped and exposed to HIV. Understandably, Ms. Charles filed a lawsuit seeking damages from Mr. Carter and Genesis Behavioral Hospital, its insurer, and its officers, Will Arledge and Gretchen Karltenbach.
Contracting and subcontracting in the construction industry are standard practices. However, they can create several challenges when a worker is injured. What happens, for instance, when the employee of a subcontractor is injured by a device owned and operated by a municipal government unconnected to the construction project at hand? The Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal recently addressed this question when a worker was injured by an overhead power line.
Brendan Sharp was employed by RedIron Construction, a Legacy Construction Services subcontractor. Legacy had been hired by Cummins Mid-South Diesel in Morgan City to construct a building, and Legacy brought RedIron in to install metal siding on the structure’s exterior. Sharp’s injury occurred when he touched one of the metal siding panels to a live overhead power line owned by Morgan City.
Sharp sued for damages, naming only Morgan City as a defendant. Morgan City then filed a third-party demand against both Legacy and RedIron, arguing that Morgan City itself was not liable for any damages due to Legacy’s and RedIron’s failure to comply with Louisiana’s Overhead Power Line Safety Act (OPLSA). La. R.S. 45:141. RedIron and Legacy then filed motions for summary judgment, contending that they were, in fact, in compliance with OPLSA.
Louisiana Personal Injury Lawyer Blog