Mayes v. McKeithen

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Mayes v. McKeithen

215 So. 2d 130, 252 La. 965, 1968 La. LEXIS 2520

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedNovember 15, 1968

DocketNo. 49506

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 215 So. 2d 130 (Mayes v. McKeithen) 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

Mayes v. McKeithen, 215 So. 2d 130, 252 La. 965, 1968 La. LEXIS 2520 (La. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

In re: Gurthie A. Mayes and Charlie G. Garner applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 213 So. 2d 340.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal there is no error in the judgment.

SANDERS, Justice. I am of the opinion a writ should be granted. The judgment of the Court of Appeal contains what appears to be a misstatement of the law governing the burden of proof in civil actions. Evidence showing that the existence of a disputed fact is more probable than not satisfies • the burden of proof. See Town of Slidell v. Temple, 246 La. 137, 164 So.2d 276; Dunphy v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, La.App., 177 So.2d 610; Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Ins. Co. v. Florane, La.App., 173 So.2d 545; 1 Jones, The Law of Evidence, § 4, p. 6 (1938). Whether or not the misstatement of the burden of proof produced an incorrect result cannot be determined without a reexamination of the evidence. Hence, the record should be brought to this Court for review.

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

In re: Gurthie A. Mayes and Charlie G. Garner applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 213 So. 2d 340.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal there is no error in the judgment.

SANDERS, Justice. I am of the opinion a writ should be granted. The judgment of the Court of Appeal contains what appears to be a misstatement of the law governing the burden of proof in civil actions. Evidence showing that the existence of a disputed fact is more probable than not satisfies • the burden of proof. See Town of Slidell v. Temple, 246 La. 137, 164 So.2d 276; Dunphy v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, La.App., 177 So.2d 610; Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Ins. Co. v. Florane, La.App., 173 So.2d 545; 1 Jones, The Law of Evidence, § 4, p. 6 (1938). Whether or not the misstatement of the burden of proof produced an incorrect result cannot be determined without a reexamination of the evidence. Hence, the record should be brought to this Court for review.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

215 So. 2d 130, 252 La. 965, 1968 La. LEXIS 2520, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mayes-v-mckeithen-la-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack