Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Sullivan v. City of Baton Rouge

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Decided January 27, 2015No. 2014 CA 0964Published

1ConcurrenceMcDONALD, J.

hi respectfully concur with the result reached in the majority opinion. I write separately, however, to express my belief that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to allow the deposition of Michael Daigle, the City’s expert witness, for use at the trial.

First, I think representations by the City’s attorney to the court, as an officer of the court,, along with documentation of email messages he received from Mr. Dai-gle indicating that Mr. Daigle’s unavailability was “on the advice of [his] cardiologist,” sufficiently established Mr. Daigle’s unavailability under LSA-C.C.P. art.…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Borden-Aicklen Auto Supply Co. v. Folse Service StationLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1927
  2. Cochran v. Pelican Well Tool & Supply Co.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1926
  3. Hill v. East Baton Rouge ParishLouisiana Court of Appeal · 2005

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API