Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Lemire v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc., 458 So. 2d 1308.

111 citing documents.

  • Rick v. State, Through DOTD 619 So. 2d 1149 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
    Lemire v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc.
  • Gauthier v. O'BRIEN 618 So. 2d 825 La. 1993
    Lemire v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc., *829
  • Taylor v. Giddens 618 So. 2d 834 La. 1993
    Lemire v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc.
  • Lindon v. Terminix Services, Inc. 617 So. 2d 1251 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
    and Long v. Northeast Soil Conserv.
  • Hillman v. Akins 614 So. 2d 234 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
    In Lemire v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc., (La.
  • Deville v. Budd Const. Co. 617 So. 2d 570 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
    Long v. Northeast Soil Conserv.
  • Young v. Armadores De Cabotaje, SA 617 So. 2d 517 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
    See Lemire v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc.
  • Cornett v. STATE THROUGH WO MOSS REG. HOSP 614 So. 2d 189 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
    art. 1880; Lemire v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc., Travers-Wakeford v. St.
  • Cornett v. State ex rel. W.O. Moss Regional Hospital 614 So. 2d 189 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
    art. 1880; Lemire v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc., Travers-Wakeford v. St.
  • City of Kenner v. Southeast Equipment Co. 611 So. 2d 785 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
    13:5105, barring jury trials against a governmental subdivision, is unconstitutional.” Lemire v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc.
  • State v. Albritton 610 So. 2d 209 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
    In Lemire v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc., the Louisiana Supreme Court stated: "The only assertions initially made by plaintiff in his response to the S & WB's application in the Court of Appeal and in his assignment of error in the writ application to this Court was that the trial judge correctly determined that he should follow La.C.C.P.
  • Thompson v. Capital Steel Co. 613 So. 2d 178 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
    See Lemire v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc.
  • Thompson v. Capital Steel Co. 621 So. 2d 1101 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
    See Lemire v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc.
  • State v. Riche 608 So. 2d 639 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1992
    See Lemire v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc., (5th Cir.1988).
  • Joseph v. Cannon 609 So. 2d 838 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1992
    the judge was not bound by the jury's findings with regard to the suit against the City; and in his own judgment, the judge found that plaintiff had failed to prove the elements of malicious prosecution against Alonzo.
  • Spears v. Broussard 602 So. 2d 235 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
  • Hodges Ward Purrington Properties v. Lee 601 So. 2d 358 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1992
    Lemire v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc., writ denied Travers-Wakeford v. St.
  • In Re RWT Applying for Adoption of JD 594 So. 2d 1383 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
  • In re R.W.T. 594 So. 2d 1383 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
  • McCullough v. Regional Transit Authority 593 So. 2d 731 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
    Lemire v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc.
  • Keith v. Gallioto 592 So. 2d 510 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1991
    Lemire v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc.
  • Haney v. Francewar 588 So. 2d 1172 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
    Melton v. General Electric Company, Inc., Lemire v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc.
  • Brown v. Williams 587 So. 2d 732 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
  • Bays v. Estate of Zeringue 584 So. 2d 715 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1991
    Lemire v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc., 24th Judicial Dist.
  • Travers-Wakeford v. St. Pierre 585 So. 2d 580 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
    Lemire v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc., writ denied at and at
  • Guidry v. Frank Guidry Oil Co. 579 So. 2d 947 La. 1991
    Interpreting the amendment, Lemire v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc., held that a jury interrogatory on the fault of a party immune from trial by jury was mandatory when supported by the evidence.
  • Melton v. General Elec. Co., Inc. 579 So. 2d 448 La. 1991
    The court of appeal reversed on the ground that the jury should have considered any negligence of the employer, relying on Lemire v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc., LSA-C.C.P.
  • Perez v. State, Through DOTD 578 So. 2d 1199 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
    See also Lemire v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc.
  • Dubois v. State Farm Ins. Co. 571 So. 2d 201 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
    Lemire v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc.
  • Vaughn v. STATE, DEPT. OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS 566 So. 2d 1021 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
    Lemire v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc., (La.
  • Melton v. General Electric Co. 566 So. 2d 98 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
    In Lemire v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc., the Louisiana Supreme Court explained the purpose and reason for the amendment: “With the adoption of comparative fault ...
  • Bruce v. Rogers Oil Tool Services, Inc. 556 So. 2d 922 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
    [2] We do not find Lemire v. New Orleans Public Ser., Inc., requiring the court to submit special interrogatories to the jury, applicable in this action.
  • McIntosh v. Madison Parish Police Jury 554 So. 2d 227 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
    The effect of Act 931 of 1988, adding subsections E and F to § 1415 effective July 26, 1988, was not raised in the trial court or here and is not considered by us. See Lamire v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc.
  • Duplessis v. Kliebert 548 So. 2d 358 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
    article 1880 and Lemire v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc.
  • Veal v. Forrest 543 So. 2d 1121 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
    Lemire v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc., (La.
  • Smiley v. Sikes 543 So. 2d 1084 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
  • Champagne v. Champagne 541 So. 2d 933 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
  • Lee v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co. 540 So. 2d 1083 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
    Lemire v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc.
  • Artigue v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. 537 So. 2d 1238 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
    Lemire v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc., (La.
  • Murphy v. City of New Orleans 537 So. 2d 1183 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
    article 1812(C)(2) in its decision in Lemire v. New Orleans Public Service *1186 Inc., stated, "With the adoption of comparative fault (C.C.
  • State v. Tanner 534 So. 2d 535 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
    Lemire v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc., 24 (La.
  • State, in Interest of Ja 532 So. 2d 943 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
    Lemire v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc.
  • Pacholl v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 527 So. 2d 1154 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
    See also, Lemire v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc.
  • 24th Judicial Dist. v. Molaison 522 So. 2d 177 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
    Lemire v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc., State in the Interest of J.B., (5th Cir. 1986).
  • Harris v. Estate of Fuller 521 So. 2d 736 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
    Lamire v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc.
  • Wong v. East Baton Rouge Parish Sheriff's Office 522 So. 2d 1134 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
    See also Lemire v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc., (La.App.
  • Dean v. Terrebonne Parish Police Jury 510 So. 2d 82 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
    Our supreme court followed this reasoning in Jones, supra at 608 , and in Lemire v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc.
  • City of Baton Rouge v. Stauffer Chemical Co. 500 So. 2d 397 La. 1987
    [7] The City-Parish argues that the issue of the unconstitutionality of the various laws is not before this court because that issue was not properly raised in the district court, citing Lemire v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc., for the proposition that the assertion of unconstitutionality must be pleaded prior to the conclusion of the action in the trial court.
  • Loe v. McNamara 501 So. 2d 298 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    47:1576.” In Lemire v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc., Justice Calogero observed that “[n]ow, in this Court, in brief, [plaintiff] asserts for the first time that ...
  • State in Interest of JB 499 So. 2d 611 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
    Lemire v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc., and no assertion of unconstitutionality was pleaded prior to the brief filed in this court.