Louisiana Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co. v. Williams

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Louisiana Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co. v. Williams

476 So. 2d 810, 1985 La. LEXIS 9689

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedOctober 21, 1985

DocketNo. 85-CC-1590

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 476 So. 2d 810 (Louisiana Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co. v. Williams) 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

Louisiana Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co. v. Williams, 476 So. 2d 810, 1985 La. LEXIS 9689 (La. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Granted. The order granting a new trial is reversed, and the jury verdict is reinstated. The trial court did not grant a new trial because a peremptory ground therefor existed. See, C.C.P. Art. 1972. The trial judge granted a new trial because he concluded from an informal discussion with jurors after a verdict was returned that the jury had erroneously applied a rule of law to the evidence. This does not constitute “good ground” for a discretionary grant of a new trial under C.C.P. Art. 1973. Except for purposes of determining if certain types of irregularities have occurred, the law does not permit inquiry into the thought processes by which a jury reaches a verdict. Conner v. Florida Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance, 446 So.2d 383, 387 (La.App.3d Cir.1984); cf. La.R.S. 15:470; Code of Jud.Cond.Canon 3(A)(4); State v. Graham, 422 So.2d 123 (La.1982).

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

PER CURIAM.

Granted. The order granting a new trial is reversed, and the jury verdict is reinstated. The trial court did not grant a new trial because a peremptory ground therefor existed. See, C.C.P. Art. 1972. The trial judge granted a new trial because he concluded from an informal discussion with jurors after a verdict was returned that the jury had erroneously applied a rule of law to the evidence. This does not constitute “good ground” for a discretionary grant of a new trial under C.C.P. Art. 1973. Except for purposes of determining if certain types of irregularities have occurred, the law does not permit inquiry into the thought processes by which a jury reaches a verdict. Conner v. Florida Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance, 446 So.2d 383, 387 (La.App.3d Cir.1984); cf. La.R.S. 15:470; Code of Jud.Cond.Canon 3(A)(4); State v. Graham, 422 So.2d 123 (La.1982).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

476 So. 2d 810, 1985 La. LEXIS 9689, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/louisiana-farm-bureau-casualty-insurance-co-v-williams-la-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack