Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Carter v. Hi Nabor Super Market, LLC
Louisiana Court of Appeal
Decided December 30, 2014No. 2013 CA 0529Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partWhipple, C.J.
| TWhile I agree with the majority that the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Hi Nabor should be reversed, I disagree with the majority’s decision to affirm the denial of Carter’s motion for adverse inference due to spoliation.
Spoliation of evidence generally refers to an intentional destruction of. evidence for the purpose of depriving opposing parties of its use.1 McCleary v. Terrebonne Par*708ish Consolidated Government, 2009-2208, p. 2 (La.App. 1st Cir.9/30/10), 2010 WL 3822225 (unpublished opinion), writ denied, 2010-2807 (La.2/11/11), 56 So.3d 1003. The theory of…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1997
- Randolph v. General Motors Corp.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1994
- Salone v. Jefferson Parish Dept. of WaterLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1994
- Clavier v. Our Lady of the Lake Hospital, Inc.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 2012
- Williams v. Shoney's, Inc.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 2000
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.