Bordelon v. Henderson

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Bordelon v. Henderson

601 So. 2d 665, 1992 La. LEXIS 2450, 1992 WL 175707

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedJuly 20, 1992

DocketNo. 92-CC-2009

StatusPublished

This text of 601 So. 2d 665 (Bordelon v. Henderson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bordelon v. Henderson, 601 So. 2d 665, 1992 La. LEXIS 2450, 1992 WL 175707 (La. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

In re Bordelon, Donna G.; Bordelon, Edward E.; Bordelon, Charles; Bordelon, Rhonda; Bordelon, Stacey L.; — Plaintiff(s); applying for supervisory and/or remedial writ; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW92-0707; Parish of Rapides, 9th Judicial District Court, Div. “D”, No. 151,-397.

Set Aside on Rehearing July 31, 1992.

Granted. The judgment of the Court of Appeal reversing the trial court’s granting of plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine is vacated and set aside and the judgment of the trial court relative thereto is reinstated. The trial court’s reasons reflect that, under the totality of the circumstances, it considered the evidence of little probative value, which was outweighed by the prejudicial impact. La.Code Evid. arts. 401, 403. Although the court of appeal may have been correct in concluding the evidence was admissible under other articles of the Evidence Code, there appears to be no reason to disturb the trial court’s ultimate conclusion that the evidence, taken as a whole, was inadmissible. Furthermore, to the extent that the evidence is offered to prove liability, it [666]*666may be inadmissible. See Stuka v. Fleming, 561 So.2d 1371 (1990).

WATSON and LEMMON, JJ., would deny the writ. HALL, J., dissents and would deny the writ concluding the court of appeal result is correct.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In re Bordelon, Donna G.; Bordelon, Edward E.; Bordelon, Charles; Bordelon, Rhonda; Bordelon, Stacey L.; — Plaintiff(s); applying for supervisory and/or remedial writ; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW92-0707; Parish of Rapides, 9th Judicial District Court, Div. “D”, No. 151,-397.

Set Aside on Rehearing July 31, 1992.

Granted. The judgment of the Court of Appeal reversing the trial court’s granting of plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine is vacated and set aside and the judgment of the trial court relative thereto is reinstated. The trial court’s reasons reflect that, under the totality of the circumstances, it considered the evidence of little probative value, which was outweighed by the prejudicial impact. La.Code Evid. arts. 401, 403. Although the court of appeal may have been correct in concluding the evidence was admissible under other articles of the Evidence Code, there appears to be no reason to disturb the trial court’s ultimate conclusion that the evidence, taken as a whole, was inadmissible. Furthermore, to the extent that the evidence is offered to prove liability, it [666]*666may be inadmissible. See Stuka v. Fleming, 561 So.2d 1371 (1990).

WATSON and LEMMON, JJ., would deny the writ. HALL, J., dissents and would deny the writ concluding the court of appeal result is correct.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

601 So. 2d 665, 1992 La. LEXIS 2450, 1992 WL 175707, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bordelon-v-henderson-la-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack