Cordova v. Allstate Ins. Co.

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Cordova v. Allstate Ins. Co.

534 So. 2d 543, 1988 La. App. LEXIS 2612, 1988 WL 126077

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedNovember 28, 1988

DocketNo. W88-1160

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 534 So. 2d 543 (Cordova v. Allstate Ins. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cordova v. Allstate Ins. Co., 534 So. 2d 543, 1988 La. App. LEXIS 2612, 1988 WL 126077 (La. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

WRIT GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART:

The trial court abused its discretion in excluding from evidence all the photographs taken of Anthony Innis prior to his cosmetic surgery, since the probative value of a photograph revealing the serious nature of the boy’s injury, prior to cosmetic surgery, outweighs any prejudicial effect it may have upon the jury. However, plaintiff is limited to the introduction of plaintiffs exhibits number 1000 and number 1004 only, since the other three photographs would be merely cumulative. See Ryals v. Home Ins. Co., 410 So.2d 827 (La.App.3rd Cir.1982), writ denied 414 So.2d 375 (La.1982). Therefore, the relator’s writ application is granted insofar as relator is allowed to introduce the two photographs identified above.

Concerning the facts surrounding the taking of defendant-Mutchler’s affidavit, the trial court was correct in ruling that the defense counsel may introduce testimony concerning the confection of the affidavit.

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

WRIT GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART:

The trial court abused its discretion in excluding from evidence all the photographs taken of Anthony Innis prior to his cosmetic surgery, since the probative value of a photograph revealing the serious nature of the boy’s injury, prior to cosmetic surgery, outweighs any prejudicial effect it may have upon the jury. However, plaintiff is limited to the introduction of plaintiffs exhibits number 1000 and number 1004 only, since the other three photographs would be merely cumulative. See Ryals v. Home Ins. Co., 410 So.2d 827 (La.App.3rd Cir.1982), writ denied 414 So.2d 375 (La.1982). Therefore, the relator’s writ application is granted insofar as relator is allowed to introduce the two photographs identified above.

Concerning the facts surrounding the taking of defendant-Mutchler’s affidavit, the trial court was correct in ruling that the defense counsel may introduce testimony concerning the confection of the affidavit.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

534 So. 2d 543, 1988 La. App. LEXIS 2612, 1988 WL 126077, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cordova-v-allstate-ins-co-lactapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack