Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Mayerhafer v. Department of Police, New Orleans, 104 So. 2d 163.

17 citing documents.

Kirsch v. New Orleans Police Department 859 So. 2d 965 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
ld in a variety of decisions that the agency’s factual findings would not be disturbed if there is of record “any evidence,” Leggett v. Northwestern State College, supra; “substantial evidence,” Konen v. New Orleans Police Department, supra; “some evidence,” Gervais v. Department of Police of the City of *968 New Orleans, supra or “probative evidence,” , (1958), to support them.
Walters v. Dept. of Police of New Orleans 454 So. 2d 106 La. 1984
(1921), this court held in a variety of decisions that the agency's factual findings would not be disturbed if there is of record "any evidence," Leggett v. Northwestern State College, supra ; "substantial evidence," Konen v. New Orleans Police Department, supra ; "some evidence," Gervais v. New Orleans Police Department, supra or "probative evidence," , (1958), to support them.
Biggio v. Department of Safety and Permits 299 So. 2d 504 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1974
Hebbler v. Department of Fire 279 So. 2d 224 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
143 , ; Mayerhafer v. Department of Police, New Orleans, , ; Danna v. Commissioner of Insurance, La.App., .
Morris v. State Department of Highways 274 So. 2d 924 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
739 , ) or "probative evidence" ( , ).
Phelps v. State Department of Hospitals 250 So. 2d 442 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
the Supreme Court employed the term ‘probative evidence’ when dealing with review of a question of fact.
Harmon v. Louisiana Wild Life & Fisheries Commission 244 So. 2d 922 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
the Supreme Court employed the term “probative evidence” when dealing with a review of a question of fact.
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 Supreme Court employed the term ‘probative evidence’ when dealing with review of a question of fact.
Smith v. Louisiana State Board of Health 201 So. 2d 14 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
the Supreme Court employed the term "probative evidence" when dealing with review of a question of fact.
Speegle v. State Department of Institutions 198 So. 2d 154 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
143 , ; , ; Danna v. Commissioner of Insurance, La.App., .
Danna v. Commissioner of Insurance 194 So. 2d 753 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
Paternostro v. New Orleans Police Department 146 So. 2d 812 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
As Mr. Justice McCaleb so aptly stated in his dissent in the Mayerhafer case ( , ): “For the civil service amendment provides that no classified employee *816 shall he disciplined or discriminated against except for cause.
Cunningham v. CADDO-SHREVEPORT HEALTH UNIT, ETC. 141 So. 2d 142 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
602 , ; , ; Colvin v. Division of Employment Security, La.App., .
Miller v. State Department of Health 135 So. 2d 570 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
the Supreme Court indicated that they would require some "probative" evidence in the record before the findings of fact of the Commission were found to be final.
Villemarette v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, ETC. 129 So. 2d 835 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
He cites in support thereof a , , to the following effect: "there was no probative evidence by which either the appointing authority or the commission could find that the present appellant either knew or should have known of the graft system sporadically maintained in the Third District."
Gremillion v. Department of Highways 129 So. 2d 805 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
the Supreme Court in construing the appellate jurisdiction of the Court on matters appealed from the Civil Service Commission referred to the fact that there was no "probative evidence" in the record as a basis for the decision of the Commission.