State v. Picou
State v. Picou, 107 So. 2d 691 (La. 1959).
Cited by
Overruled in 1
- State v. Parvez 249 So. 3d 102 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
- State of Louisiana v. Ashaki Okung Kelly 195 So. 3d 449 La. 2016
- State v. Odom 861 So. 2d 187 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
- State v. Gardner 844 So. 2d 1097 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
- State v. Berry 545 So. 2d 1151 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
- State v. Jones 525 So. 2d 1149 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
- State v. Oliveaux 312 So. 2d 337 La. 1975
- State v. Craddock 307 So. 2d 342 La. 1975
- State v. Bonfanti 227 So. 2d 916 La. 1969
- State v. Mann 202 So. 2d 259 La. 1967
- State v. Atkins 181 So. 2d 779 La. 1966
- State v. Perkins 178 So. 2d 255 La. 1965
Opinion text
McCALEB, Justice (concurring). *440 In general, I am in agreement with the majority opinion but I do not subscribe to the view that an interest in a claim for damages for personal injuries is not a thing of value which may be the object of a theft. Such a claim is an incorporeal movable and, if defendant had taken it by fraud, I think he would be subject to prosecution. But it is evident from the answers to the bill of particulars that defendant did not misappropriate or take the 20% (or 331/3%) interest in the damage claim of Wall by fraud; the only thing he thus obtained was the irrevocable right to represent Wall as his attorney on a contingent fee basis. In other words, the alleged object of the theft, i. e., interest in the claim, was not taken; the transfer of this interest was founded on a valid consideration — professional services to be rendered Wall; the alleged fraud consisted of defendant’s misrepresentation by which he assertedly obtained the employment, which, if true, gives rise only to a civil action for annulment of the contract. Filed Jan. 8, 1959.