Reichert v. State, Department of Transportation & Development

667 So. 2d 542
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Reichert v. State, Department of Transportation & Development. Read the opinion of the Court — 1996 La. LEXIS 399
Supreme Court of Louisiana·Decided February 9, 1996·No. No. 95-C-1775·Published

Opinion

In re Reichert, Martha; Reichert, Thomas;—Plaintiffs); applying for writ of certio-rari and/or review; Parish of Lincoln, 3rd District Court, Div. “A”, No. 39,745; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 26800-CA.

Writ granted. Court of appeal erred in finding that exhibits 29, 33, 36 and 37 were not admissible under 23 U.S.C.A. section 409 and this court’s decision in Wiedeman v. Dixie Electric Membership Corp., 627 So.2d 170 (La.1993). Therefore, the court erred in making a “de novo assessment of liability without deference to either verdict.” Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the court of appeal and remand the case to that court to render a judgment after giving proper deference to the jury verdict and the judgment of the trial court.

LEMMON and VICTORY, JJ., would grant and docket.

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

Reichert v. State, Department of Transportation & Development, 667 So. 2d 542 (La. 1996).

667 So. 2d 542 (Reichert v. State, Department of Transportation & Development) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Wiedeman v. Dixie Elec. Membership Corp.
627 So. 2d 170 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1993)