Cited by
Opinions in Louisiana that cite Bastrop State Bank v. Levy, 106 La. 586.
- State in Interest of AC 643 So. 2d 719 La. 1994
- Hoffman v. Schwegmann Giant Super Markets 572 So. 2d 825 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
- Levens v. Commercial Union Insurance Companies 529 So. 2d 871 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
- B. Segall Company, Inc. v. Trahan 290 So. 2d 854 La. 1974
- Mathieu v. Williams 255 So. 2d 151 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1971
- Ruthardt v. Tennant 215 So. 2d 805 La. 1968
- Baton Rouge District Telco Federal Credit Union No. 1726 v. Corkern 199 So. 2d 419 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
- Bacon v. Peerless Insurance Co. 148 So. 2d 811 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
- Switzerland General Ins. v. Roe 73 So. 2d 501 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
-
Stanley v. Jones
9 So. 2d 678
La. 1942
aid: “The presumption is always and inevitably against a litigant who fails to furnish evidence within his reach.” In Jones on Evidence, Volume I, Section 17, page 49, it is said: “There is a recognized legal presumption that a party will produce evidence which is favorable to him if such evidence exists and is available.” The ruling in the following cases is in point: , 31 So.
-
Smith v. Richland State Bank
9 So. 2d 327
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
In thus temporarily disposing of the case, , 31 So.
- Weaks Supply Co. v. Werdin 154 So. 378 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
- Succession of Roque 146 So. 477 La. 1933
-
McCollister Bros. v. Labarre
7 La. App. 350
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1927
Co. vs. R. R. Commission, , 31 So.
-
Rousseau v. Texas & Pacific
4 La. App. 691
La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1926
“When a defendant can by his own testimony throw light upon matters at issue, necessary to his defense and peculiarly within his own knowledge, if the facts exist, and fails to go upon the witness stand, the presumption is raised, and will be given effect to, that the facts do not exist.” Bank vs. Levy, , 31 South.
-
Geddes & Moss Undertaking & Embalming Co. v. Simkins
4 La. App. 125
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1926
“The burden of proof lies with the party who is most cognizant with the facts necessary to decide the issue.” Underwood Typewriter Co. vs. Vatter, 14 Ct. of App. 410; Bank vs. Levy, , 31 South.
- Kennon v. Brooks-Scanlon Co. 86 So. 675 La. 1920
- State v. Jahraus 41 So. 575 La. 1906