Louisiana Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
Working in a courthouse may seem like an environment where the rule of law reigns supreme, but even within its hallowed halls, employees can encounter workplace issues and retaliation. In the following case, a Louisiana State Judge became embroiled in a dispute involving a law clerk’s alleged illegal and unethical behavior. As a result of this disagreement and the actions taken by her colleagues, the Judge claimed she suffered unfair treatment, false accusations, and the violation of her constitutional rights. A lawsuit was filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging retaliation for exercising her First Amendment right to freedom of speech. However, the courts were tasked with determining whether her claims truly amounted to violating her constitutional rights or merely involving unfriendly conduct.
Sharon Ingram Marchman was a Louisiana State Judge in Louisiana’s Fourth Judicial Court. She claimed a law clerk had been involved in illegal and unethical behavior. Marchman claimed that due to a disagreement among judges and staff at the Fourth Judicial Court on how to deal with the law clerk, she was treated unfairly by the other employees and falsely accused of disclosing confidential information. Marchman claimed this culminated with her resigning as chair of the personnel committee.
Marchman filed a lawsuit against the law clerk, some of the other judges, and various other individuals. Marchman claimed they violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and retaliated against her for exercising her First Amendment right to free speech. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). The trial court agreed Marchman had not stated a claim as she did not adequately allege any violation of her constitutional rights and dismissed her case. The trial court explained at most, Marchman’s allegations involved unfriendly or unprofessional conduct but not a violation of her constitutional rights. Marchman appealed.
Many of us provide support to elderly folks in our lives through our time and money. We expect the utmost attention and respect when we send a loved one to a care facility. Sometimes accidents happen, whether by negligence or by accident, that result in injury to patients. Regardless of the cause of injury, a lawsuit can help hold medical professionals responsible for the type of care they provide. The difference between a tort and a medical malpractice claim for nursing home injuries is examined in the following case. 
People often assume that pedestrians always have the right of way. While this adage is partially true, pedestrians who avoid proper safety protocols can be found more at fault for an injury than the car that struck them. If avoiding physical trauma is not motivation enough to look both ways before crossing the street, the following lawsuit may encourage you to take proactive steps to avoid being hit.
Can a trial court’s approval of a settlement agreement in a property contamination lawsuit be upheld without determining remediation requirements and the deposit of funds into the court registry? This question lies at the heart of the following case, which features an appeal of the trial court’s judgment approving a settlement agreement regarding property contamination caused by historic oil and gas operations. The appeal raises issues of statutory interpretation and whether the trial court erred in its application of the law. The resolution of this question has significant implications for the approval process of settlement agreements in similar cases governed by 
Vicarious liability in the context of work-related accidents is a complex legal issue that necessitates careful analysis of the state’s code. The case of Sarah Barber serves as a compelling example of the potential consequences when a government employee causes an accident while performing their job duties. Understanding the nuances of vicarious liability and the specific provisions governing such cases is essential to determine the employer’s liability for the actions of their employees.
When it comes to medical malpractice, time can be both a friend and a foe. Trusting doctors to safeguard the well-being of our loved ones makes the process of bringing a lawsuit challenging and emotionally charged. Yet, within the legal field, there exist specific time frames and procedural intricacies that can make or break a case. Once the clock runs out on a particular timeframe, a lawsuit is deemed barred, leaving individuals without recourse. In the midst of this intricate dance between justice and time, the story of Rita Foster and her family shines a light on the importance of understanding legal procedures and seeking qualified legal representation.
Being involved in a car accident is unfortunate, especially when it leaves you with long-term pain and suffering. If your injuries are a direct result of a car accident, you may be entitled to compensation from those who caused them. Rather than risk representing yourself in the legal process and walking away with little to nothing, you need to be represented by a qualified attorney who can assist in getting you the damages you deserve. 
Racial discrimination in the workplace is a pressing issue that demands attention and action within our legal system. However, bringing a claim of racial discrimination or a hostile work environment requires the ability to substantiate crucial factors. The following case highlights the significance of providing essential evidence when pursuing racial discrimination or hostile work environment claims.
The language used in insurance policies can hold immense significance when determining the resulting coverage and payouts. In a compelling case involving three tug boats, the M/V Miss Dorothy, the M/V Angela Rae, and the M/V Freedom, an unfortunate collision prompted a dispute over insurance claims. As insurers of the Miss Dorothy sought compensation from the owners of the Angela Rae, the crux of the matter revolved around the interpretation of key terms within the insurance policies. The court’s analysis focused on the definition of “tow” and the parties’ intent, underscoring the critical role that precise language plays in insurance contracts. This case serves as a powerful reminder to both drafters and signers of insurance policies that every word holds weight and can shape the outcome of a claim.
The 1985 murder of Denise Porter by stabbing was a horrific tragedy with life-altering ramifications for her husband, Joel, a Louisiana attorney. It also provides an example of how records from a criminal investigation can and cannot be requested.