Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Konen v. New Orleans Police Department, 77 So. 2d 24.

33 citing documents.

Roy Neely v. Department of Fire La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2021
Fascio v. Department of Police 9 So. 3d 1029 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2009
Fuller v. Department of Fire 968 So. 2d 731 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2007
329, 338 , (1971); , (1954).
Kirsch v. New Orleans Police Department 859 So. 2d 965 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Whitaker v. New Orleans Police Dept. 863 So. 2d 572 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
Thompson v. New Orleans Police Dept. 844 So. 2d 940 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
Roby v. Department of Finance 496 So. 2d 1096 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
329 , (1971); , (1954); Thomas v. Department of Welfare, supra.
Walters v. Dept. of Police of New Orleans 454 So. 2d 106 La. 1984
Morris v. State Department of Highways 274 So. 2d 924 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
There has been some variation in the expression or description of evidence sufficient to maintain a finding of the Commission on a question of fact, and the courts having variously used the expression "substantial evidence" ( , ) or "probative evidence" (Mayerhafer v. Dept. of Police of the City of New Orleans, 235 La.
Phelps v. State Department of Hospitals 250 So. 2d 442 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
the court stated ‘ * * * [Wjhere the decision is based on substantial evidence, the court may not consider the weight or sufficiency of the evidence.’ This same language was used in Cottingham v. Dept. of Revenue, State of Louisiana, 232 La.
Suire v. Louisiana State Board of Cosmetology 224 So. 2d 7 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
Cormier v. Louisiana State Penitentiary, State Department of Institutions 206 So. 2d 771 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
the court stated ‘ * * * (W) here the decision is based on substantial evidence, the court may not consider the weight or sufficiency of the evidence’.
Smith v. Louisiana State Board of Health 201 So. 2d 14 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
the court stated "* * * [W]here the decision is based on substantial evidence, the court may not consider the weight or sufficiency of the evidence."
Paternostro v. New Orleans Police Department 159 So. 2d 714 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
Gervais v. New Orleans Police Department, 226 La.
Foster v. Department of Public Welfare 159 So. 2d 515 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
Article 14, Section 15(0) (1), Louisiana Constitution; , .
Nuss v. New Orleans Police Department 149 So. 2d 656 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
Paternostro v. New Orleans Police Department 146 So. 2d 812 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
and other cases cited in the Broussard case, supra.
Carr v. New Orleans Police Department 144 So. 2d 452 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
982 , ; Konen v. New Orleans Police Dept., 1954, , ; Domas v. Division of Employment, 1955, 227 La.
Foster v. Department of Public Welfare 144 So. 2d 271 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
729 , , virtually all aspects of the alleged unconstitutionality of the amendment advanced by appellant predicated upon a purported violation of due process have been decided adversely to appellant’s contention.
Leggett v. Northwestern State College 140 So. 2d 5 La. 1962
Gervais v. New Orleans Police Department, 226 La.
Cunningham v. CADDO-SHREVEPORT HEALTH UNIT, ETC. 141 So. 2d 142 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
King v. Department of Public Safety of State of La., 236 La.
Miller v. State Department of Health 135 So. 2d 570 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
The question as to who has the authority to discharge an employee has been presented for decision, and in the matter of Konen v. New Orleans Police Department, *575 , , at page 27, the Court quoted the following legal holding from Keim v. United States, 177 U.S. 290, 293 , 20 S.Ct.
Colvin v. Division of Employment Security 132 So. 2d 909 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
However, the basis of the dissenting opinion, as well as the position of the appellee, is that this Court is without authority to examine the weight and sufficiency of the evidence where there is some evidence to support the finding of the Commission, , ; Jordan v. New Orleans Police Department, 232 La.
Villemarette v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, ETC. 129 So. 2d 835 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
Jordan v. New Orleans Police Department, 232 La.
Gremillion v. Department of Highways 129 So. 2d 805 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
the Supreme Court in its opinion used the language that the Court would not disturb the decision of the Civil Service Commission unless the action of the Board or Commission was arbitrary and where the decision was based on substantial evidence the Court would not consider the weight or sufficiency of
Fallon v. New Orleans Police Department 115 So. 2d 844 La. 1959
or is based on political or religious reasons the same provision of the Constitution authorizes dismissal ‘for cause,’ and sets up a Commission to which application may be made when an employee is aggrieved — said commission being vested with ‘the exclusive right to hear and decide all appeals and the legality of all removal and disciplinary cases.’ * * * ” , .
King v. Dept. of Public Safety of the State of Louisiana 108 So. 2d 524 La. 1959
Domas v. Division of Employment Security of Department of Labor, 227 La.
Reed v. Louisiana Wild Life & Fisheries Commission 102 So. 2d 869 La. 1958
contention * * * that cause for his dismissal was illegal and not justifiable under the circumstances in which, at the time, he found himself, we conclude that this involves purely the reasonableness of the cause based upon the final and conclusive findings of fact by the Commission, the correctness of which cannot be inquired into by the courts.” , and Broussard v. State Industrial School for Colored Youths, 231 La.
Jordan v. New Orleans Police Department 95 So. 2d 607 La. 1957
Louisiana Constitution of 1921, Article 14, Section 15(0) (1); Rule XXII, Revised Rules of the Supreme Court of Louisiana; , ; Gervais v. New Orleans Police Department, 226 La.
Cottingham v. Department of Revenue 94 So. 2d 662 La. 1957
* * * the burden of proving arbitrary action in the discharge of the employee is on the employee.'" , .
Cottingham v. Department of Revenue 94 So. 2d 662 La. 1957
* * * the burden of proving arbitrary action in the discharge of the employee is on the employee.’ ” , .
Broussard v. State Industrial School for Colored Youths 90 So. 2d 73 La. 1956
See, , ; Gervais v. New Orleans Police Department, 226 La.
Domas v. Division of Employment Security of Department of Labor 79 So. 2d 857 La. 1955