Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Stermer v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co.
Louisiana Court of Appeal
Decided February 24, 2016No. 15-811Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partPickett, J.
IT concur with the majority’s conclusions that the trial court did not err with regard to its award of court costs and that Ms. Stermer is not entitled to an award of attorney fees for work performed by her attorney on remand. I respectfully dissent, however, with regard to the majority’s conclusion that Ms. Stermer is entitled to attorney fees for work performed in the trial court after ARTCO instituted payment of maintenance and cure benefits.
On remand, ARTCO argued that Ms. Stermer is only entitled to an award of attorney fees for work' her counsel performed that was directly related to…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Vaughan v. AtkinsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- David McCorpen v. Central Gulf Steamship CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1968
- Leopoldo Morales v. Garijak, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1987
- Guevara v. Maritime Overseas Corp.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1995
- Fulmer v. State, Department of Wildlife & FisheriesSupreme Court of Louisiana · 2011
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.