Insurance Dispute Lawyer Blog
Being a classified civil servant provides certain protections, including the right to due process before termination. The following case revolves around a police officer who claimed his due process rights were violated when he was terminated following multiple infractions. It highlights the importance of adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard in cases involving the termination of classified civil servants.
Uletom Hewitt had been working for the Lafayette Police Department for approximately four years when he saw what he thought was evidence of a bomb at the mall food court where he was working as off-duty security. He then proceeded to evacuate the people visiting the mall. Hewitt was disciplined by the police department for his “over-exuberant” handling of the event and for disobeying an order from a superior not to evacuate the mall. He was suspended for five days without pay after a pre-determination hearing.
Hewitt appealed this decision to the Lafayette Municipal Fire and Police Civil Service Board (the “Board”). The Board upheld the decision and the corresponding punishment given to Hewitt. Subsequently, Hewitt was involved in various other acts of misconduct, which resulted in him being placed on administrative leave. These infractions included failing to use his in-dash camera system properly; failing to complete an off-duty request form, working as an off-duty security detail while on administrative leave; failing to provide an updated address to the police department; failing to return calls from internal affairs investigators. Hewitt never returned to duty and was informed he would be terminated. The reasons for his termination included misconduct while he was out on administrative leave.
If you have been involved in a motorcycle or car accident, you might not know how an expert witness could help support your claim in court. What happens if there is conflicting testimony from each party’s expert witness about the cause of the accident?
When it comes to personal injury claims resulting from slips, trips, or falls, the concept of open and obvious defects plays a significant role. Failing to act reasonably or being harmed by an apparent defect may hinder your ability to recover compensation for your injuries. This case exemplifies the importance of these factors in determining liability.
Family businesses can present challenging legal issues. Although you might feel like you can trust your family members to do the right thing, this is not always true, especially when large sums of money are involved. This case illustrates the complexities that resulted from agreements related to ownership of a family business, which was only resolved following multiple appeals. 
When considering a legal malpractice claim, it is crucial to understand that proving your attorneys’ negligence alone is insufficient. To establish the merit of such a claim, you must demonstrate an underlying loss resulting from their negligence. This requires presenting compelling evidence that your original claim would have been successful had your attorneys not been negligent. The case of Shawn Cupit, who pursued a wrongful death lawsuit, highlights the significance of providing admissible evidence and the challenges involved in proving a legal malpractice case.
Sufficient evidence is required to prevail in any lawsuit. Generally, each side obtains additional evidence through the discovery process. However, what happens if a court grants a summary judgment motion for one party before the other party has time to complete adequate discovery? The following case helps answer this question.
One tool courts can use to manage litigation is a Special Master. A Special Master issues reports that a court can consider when ruling on a case. However, what happens if a court disregards the recommendations in a Special Master’s report? This situation raises intriguing questions about the authority and discretion of the court, leaving us to ponder the implications of such actions, as discussed in the case below.
Imagine, for a moment, you’re organizing a large-scale event with a long checklist of details to manage. Now imagine missing one tiny detail and having it cost you a whopping quarter-million dollars! That’s precisely the scenario that unfolded for Star Financial Services, Inc., a prominent ATM operator, in their dealings with Cardtronics, USA, Inc. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the District Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Cardtronics.
Imagine attending a routine medical appointment at your local doctor’s office. You enter the premises expecting a standard check-up, but unexpectedly, you trip over a defective threshold and fall onto a hard terrazzo floor. This unsettling scenario is precisely what Lois J. Tate encountered in their accident, sparking a personal injury action against Touro Infirmary and Louisiana Children’s Medical Center. The Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed the Trial Court’s decision to grant summary judgment in favor of the defendants, Touro Infirmary, and Louisiana Children’s Medical Center.
Hurricanes can result in significant property damage, including flooding with contaminated water. When faced with such a situation, homeowners may wonder if they have a viable lawsuit against the responsible parties, such as the company responsible for the contaminants or the city involved in managing the wastewater system. The following case sheds light on the legal considerations surrounding property damage caused by contaminated floodwater and the potential liability of the responsible entities.