Gladney v. De Bretton
Gladney v. De Bretton, 49 So. 2d 18 (La. 1950).
Cited by
- Freeman v. Cooper 390 So. 2d 1355 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
- Snowden v. Pearl River Broadcasting Corp. 251 So. 2d 405 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
- Francis v. Lake Charles American Press 241 So. 2d 73 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
- Greenberg v. Burglass 216 So. 2d 638 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
- Wilde v. Schwegmann Bros. Giant Supermarkets, Inc. 160 So. 2d 839 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1964
- Abraham v. Boat Center, Inc. 146 So. 2d 23 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1962
- Cox v. Cashio 96 So. 2d 872 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
- Schrader v. Coleman E. Adler & Sons, Inc. 65 So. 2d 136 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- 16 So. 192 not in our corpus
- Bloom v. Crescioni 109 La. 667
- Gilardino v. Patorno 127 La. 255
- Kenner v. Milner 196 So. 535
Opinion text
PONDER, Justice (dissenting). In answer to a question by the plaintiff as to why the defendant thought the plaintiff ought to be searched, the defendant testified, viz.: “Because one of your clients • showed up with a knife after you came to see him”. A sheriff must use every reasonable effort to prevent the escape of prisoners and to prevent them from inflicting injury on others. In performing this duty, he should be accorded considerable latitude. In view of the fact that the plaintiff went immediately to the press and gave a statement of his version of what occurred and the fact that the defendant’s statement was made only in reply, after inquiry by the press, it would appear that the plaintiff initiated the controversy which resulted in mutual .interchange of epithets and abuse and the authorities referred to in the majority opinion are applicable. Fulda v. Caldwell et al., 9 La.Ann. 358 ; Goldberg v. Dobberton, 46 La.Ann. 1303 , 16 So. 192 ; Bloom v. Crescioni, 109 La. 667 , 33 So. 724 ; Gilardino v. Patorno, 127 La. 255 , 53 So. 556 ; and Kenner v. Milner, La.App., 196 So. 535 . Moreover, I believe the trial judge was in error in refusing to allow the defendant to question the plaintiff regarding his activity in the campaign against the defendant for re-election and to1 question the plaintiff as to a statement that he had purportedly made that “If we win this suit we have deBretton beaten”. Any evidence tending to show that the entire transaction was instigated for political purposes, in my opinion, should have been admitted in order that the true situation may have been ascertained. For the reasons assigned, I respectfully dissent.