Watson v. Woldenberg Vill., Inc.

4 Citing cases

  1. Eichmann v. State

    390 So. 3d 415 (La. Ct. App. 2024)

    When evidence is introduced to support or controvert a peremptory exception of prescription, as in this case, the Court generally applies the manifest error or clearly wrong standard of review. See Watson v. Woldenberg Vill., Inc., 20-0453, p. 4 (La. App. 4 Cir. 7/7/21), 323 So.3d 951, 954 (citations omitted). However, "[w]hen evidence is introduced but the case involves no dispute regarding material facts, only the determination of a legal issue, an appellate court must review the issue de novo, giving no deference to the trial court’s legal determination."

  2. Robertson v. Unicorp, LLC

    2022 CW 1322 (La. Ct. App. Apr. 17, 2023)

    Furthermore, I find the plaintiff failed to meet her burden of proving the claims relate back to the original petition, as the original petition failed to set forth a legally viable claim. SeeWatson v. Woldenberg Village, Inc., 2020-0453 (La.App. 4th Cir. 7/7/21), 323 So.3d 951. Accordingly, I would grant the exception of prescription and dismiss the claims alleged in the Second Amended and Restated Petition.

  3. Robertson v. Unicorp, LLC

    2022 CW 1366 (La. Ct. App. Apr. 17, 2023)

    Furthermore, I find the plaintiff failed to meet her burden of proving the claims relate back to the original petition, as the original petition failed to set forth a legally viable claim. SeeWatson v. Weidenberg Village, Inc., 2020-0453 (La.App. 4th Cir. 7/7/21), 323 So.3d 951.

  4. Soileau v. Churchill Downs La. Horseracing Co.

    334 So. 3d 901 (La. Ct. App. 2021)   Cited 3 times

    This Court recently indicated "[i]t is well-established that appellate courts will not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal, which are not pleaded in the court below and which the trial court has not addressed." Watson v. Woldenberg Vill., Inc. , 2020-0453, p.6 (La. App. 4 Cir. 7/7/21), 323 So.3d 951, 955. As Appellants did not raise the issue of Mr. Alfortish's role in the trial court timely, Mr. Alfortish's role will not be considered by this Court.