McCain v. Pan-American Petroleum Corp.

Louisiana Court of Appeal

McCain v. Pan-American Petroleum Corp.

146 So. 331, 1933 La. App. LEXIS 103

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedMarch 6, 1933

DocketNo. 4312.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 146 So. 331 (McCain v. Pan-American Petroleum Corp.) 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

McCain v. Pan-American Petroleum Corp., 146 So. 331, 1933 La. App. LEXIS 103 (La. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

TALIAFERRO, Judge.

The rehearing in this case was granted without restriction. However, the court did so largely because the evidence given by defendant’s medical expert witnesses was inadvertently omitted from the record by the clerk in preparing it for this court. The omitted evidence bore upon the question of the extent and duration of plaintiff’s injuries and their possible effect upon his ability in the future to do the work in which he had been engaged prior to being injured. By agreement of counsel, the record has been supplemented by the omitted testimony in the form of a letter signed by the physicians, which, it was agreed, should be considered by the court in lieu of their evidence under oath.

All phases of the ease have again been earn *332 estly argued and briefed by defendants’ learned counsel, and we have again considered and studied this voluminous record out of a desire to correct any errors in our judgment, if any could be discovered. The testimony of all the witnesses, and there are many, has again been read in connection with the forceful, though critical, brief of defendants’ counsel on rehearing, and we turn from our labor feeling that, as far as is humanly possible, this ease has been given due consideration, and that our former judgment is correct,

For the reasons assigned herein, the judgment heretofore rendered by us is reinstated and made the final decree of this court.

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

TALIAFERRO, Judge.

The rehearing in this case was granted without restriction. However, the court did so largely because the evidence given by defendant’s medical expert witnesses was inadvertently omitted from the record by the clerk in preparing it for this court. The omitted evidence bore upon the question of the extent and duration of plaintiff’s injuries and their possible effect upon his ability in the future to do the work in which he had been engaged prior to being injured. By agreement of counsel, the record has been supplemented by the omitted testimony in the form of a letter signed by the physicians, which, it was agreed, should be considered by the court in lieu of their evidence under oath.

All phases of the ease have again been earn *332 estly argued and briefed by defendants’ learned counsel, and we have again considered and studied this voluminous record out of a desire to correct any errors in our judgment, if any could be discovered. The testimony of all the witnesses, and there are many, has again been read in connection with the forceful, though critical, brief of defendants’ counsel on rehearing, and we turn from our labor feeling that, as far as is humanly possible, this ease has been given due consideration, and that our former judgment is correct,

For the reasons assigned herein, the judgment heretofore rendered by us is reinstated and made the final decree of this court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

146 So. 331, 1933 La. App. LEXIS 103, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccain-v-pan-american-petroleum-corp-lactapp-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack