Mitchell v. Dillard Dept.

4 Citing cases

  1. Onaolapo v. Wal-Mart La., LLC

    Civil Action 20-465-RLB (M.D. La. Nov. 24, 2021)

    The foregoing statute “provides authority to merchants to detain and question an individual suspected of shoplifting when the merchant has reasonable cause to believe that a theft has occurred, without subjecting the merchant to civil suits by the detained person.” Cariere v. The Kroger Store, 208 So.3d 987, 990 (La.App. 2d Cir. 2016) (citing Mitchell v. Dillard Dep'tStores, Inc., 772 So.2d 733, 736 (La.App. 5th Cir. 2000); Freeman v. Kar Way, Inc., 686 So.2d 51, 54 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1996)). “To be entitled to civil immunity

  2. Doe v. Liebsch

    872 N.W.2d 875 (Minn. 2015)   Cited 48 times
    Holding that statements of fact in a complaint may be used "for impeachment purposes" when they contradict later testimony

    See Blohm v. Comm'r, 994 F.2d 1542, 1555 (11th Cir.1993); Graybill v. U.S. Postal Serv., 782 F.2d 1567, 1573 n. 1 (Fed.Cir.1986); Cortese v. Black, 838 F.Supp. 485, 494 (D.Colo.1993); United States v. Krietemeyer, 506 F.Supp. 289, 292 (S.D.Ill.1980); Emp'rs Mut. Cas. Co. v. Van Haaften, 815 N.W.2d 17, 23 (Iowa 2012); Mitchell v. Dillard Dep't Stores, Inc., 772 So.2d 733, 736 (La.Ct.App.2000); Merchants Mut. Ins. Co. v. Arzillo, 98 A.D.2d 495, 505, 472 N.Y.S.2d 97 (N.Y.App.Div.1984); Zurcher v. Bilton, 379 S.C. 132, 666 S.E.2d 224, 227 (2008); McEwan v. State, 314 P.3d 1160, 1165 n. 4 (Wyo.2013). But see Hemphill v. Pollina, 400 S.W.3d 409, 415 (Mo.Ct.App.2013); Parson v. Carroll, 272 Va. 560, 636 S.E.2d 452, 455 (2006); In re Cross, 178 Wash.2d 519, 309 P.3d 1186, 1190 (2013); Clark v. Baines, 150 Wash.2d 905, 84 P.3d 245, 251 (2004). If an Alford plea, like a conventional guilty plea, may be dispositive on guilt or civil liability, most certainly it is highly probative.

  3. Cariere v. Kroger Store

    208 So. 3d 987 (La. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 4 times
    In Cariere v. The Kroger Store, 50,637 (La. App. 2 Cir. 11/16/16), 208 So. 3d 987, the trial court granted a partial motion for summary judgment but did not designate the judgment as final and appealable.

    The above statute provides authority to merchants to detain and question an individual suspected of shoplifting when the merchant has reasonable cause to believe that a theft has occurred, without subjecting the merchant to civil suits by the detained person. Mitchell v. Dillard Dep't Stores, Inc. , 2000–328 (La. App. 5th Cir. 10/18/00), 772 So.2d 733, 736 ; Freeman v. Kar Way, Inc., 1996–8 (La. App. 3rd Cir. 11/06/96), 686 So.2d 51, 54, writ not cons. , 1997–0524 (La. 04/18/97), 692 So.2d 429. Reasonable cause to detain is something less than probable cause and requires that the detaining officer have articulable knowledge of particular facts sufficiently reasonable to suspect the detained person of criminal activity. Vaughn v. Wal–Mart Stores, Inc. , 1998–1215 (La. App. 5th Cir. 04/27/99), 734 So.2d 156 ; McNeely v. Nat'l Tea Co. , 1994–392 (La. App. 5th Cir. 03/28/95), 653 So.2d 1231, writ denied , 1995–1531 (La. 09/29/95), 660 So.2d 880.

  4. Zeringue v. O'Brien Transp.

    931 So. 2d 377 (La. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 15 times

    Summary judgments are now favored in the law and the rules should be liberally applied. The summary judgment procedure shall be construed to accomplish the ends of just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of allowable actions. La. C.C.P. art. 966; Mitchell v. Dillard Dept. Stores, Inc., 00-328 (La.App. 5 Cir. 10/18/00), 772 So.2d 733. Appellate courts review summary judgments de novo under the same criteria that govern the trial court's determination of whether summary judgment is appropriate. Haley v. Roberts, 02-30 (La.App. 5 Cir. 5/29/02), 820 So.2d 1114, 1116.