· 11/3/1903

Caillouet & Maginnis v. Coguenhem

Citations

111 La. 60
35 So. 385
1903 La. LEXIS 489

Syllabus

OBSTRUCTING PUBLIC DRAIN — ACTION FOR DAMAGES—EVIDENCE—INJUNCTION—DAMAGES—DISSOLUTION. 1. In an action sounding in damages for the asserted interruption of a public drain into a stream, to the use of which plaintiffs were entitled for drainage purposes, by hauling timber therein, it was not shown that the timber was the proximate cause of the damage. There were two causes alleged: '(1) by plaintiffs, that the timber in the stream caused the damage; (2) the other, alleged by defendants, that it was caused by a storm. Plaintiffs’ field of corn and cane was submerged for a number of days and damages suffered. A number of witnesses testify that the damage was not by the storm, that it was caused by the logs; others, that the damage was not occasioned by the logs in the stream, that it was caused by the storm. The testimony is quite conflicting. Plaintiffs, upon whom was the onus of proof, did not sustain their demand for damages. It is rejected. ■2. Two of the defendants against whom the suit was brought were not parties at all in hauling and floating logs. As to them, there is no issue at all. 3. As to the remaining defendants, whilst it is evident that they had no right to use the drain without taking proper care of their timber after it had been placed in the stream, which is admitted to be public, they .cannot be held liable; it not being shown that they occasioned a loss or imposed an injury. 4. The defendants are not entitled to damages upon the dissolution of the injunction. Plaintiffs acted in good faitli in taking out the injunction. The issues tendered by defendants are not such as to be basis enough for judgment holding plaintiffs liable for damages. 5. Defendants claim attorney’s fees for the dissolution of the writ. No motion to dissolve was tried. The writ was dissolved after trial on the merits. Glaim for fees set up by defendants is not allowed. (Syllabus by the Court.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

requiring defendant to revise anti-discrimination policy to include new complaint procedure, subject to the EEOC’s approval
ordering revisions to defendant employer’s antidiscrimination policies to, include examples of religious discrimination, define a hostile work environment, and include the EEOC’s contact information in their policies
ordering defendants to remove the subsection of their employee handbook titled “False Accusations and Information” where facts of the case involved hostile work environment and wrongful termination claims
granting permanent injunction ordering defendants to refrain from religious discrimination and harassment
requiring defendant employer to employ a third party to provide trainings on Title VII and the NYSHRL, to provide the EEOC copy of training materials at least fourteen days prior to such training, and to provide the trainings within sixty days of the order (and annually thereafter
“Failure to adequately document costs may result in the denial or reduction of those costs.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Breaux

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.