Perroncel v. Judge Roy Bean's Saloon, Inc.
Perroncel v. Judge Roy Bean's Saloon, Inc., 410 So. 2d 745 (La. 1982).
Cited by
- State of Louisiana v. Lonnie B. Kirklin, Jr. A/K/A Lonnie Bernard Kirklin, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
- State v. Allen 118 So. 3d 514 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
- State v. Ayche 978 So. 2d 1143 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
- State v. Boyer 967 So. 2d 458 La. 2007
- State v. Sherman 886 So. 2d 1116 La. 2004
- State v. Turner 779 So. 2d 906 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
- State v. Bradford 729 So. 2d 1049 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
- State v. Williams 665 So. 2d 112 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
- State v. Byes 648 So. 2d 1073 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1994
- State v. Range 642 So. 2d 1318 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
- State v. Roblow 623 So. 2d 51 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
- State v. Francise 597 So. 2d 28 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Perroncel v. Judge Roy Bean's Saloon, Inc. 405 So. 2d 626
Opinion text
Re: John C. Perroncel, Michael M. Sper-andeo and E. J. Bolzoni, applying for Cer-tiorari, or writ of Review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Calcasieu, Number 8393. 'Writ Granted. The Court of Appeal properly disagreed with the trial court and correctly recited the law with respect to burden of proof and the burden of going forward in this lawsuit by a lessor to recover for alleged losses of certain movable items and damages to leased premises. However its affirming the trial court judgment by relying upon the answers by defendant to interrogatories posed by a third party defendant, filed in the record but not introduced at trial, was erroneous. Those answers were not introduced in evidence and thus not exposed to defense objection. And had they been introduced or had defendant testified at trial substantially in accord with those answers (upon defense presentation of evidence) plaintiff would have had the opportunity to counter such evidence in rebuttal. The trial court’s granting dismissal of plaintiff’s suit at the close of plaintiff’s case on motion of defendant, and the Court of Appeal’s affirmance of that judgment are reversed, 405 So.2d 626 . The case is remanded to the district court for continuation of trial.