Lombard v. Citizens Bank
Citations
- 107 La. 183
Syllabus
<p>Syllabus.</p> <p>1. An order of court directing a party to the suit to set out his claim more specifically will not be reversed unless it is manifest that error has been committed.</p> <p>2. It is not unreasonable to require of the pleader, who sues on a contract, to disclose whether he sues on a written contract or on a verbal contract.</p> <p>3. Facts essential to sustain the suit should be stated.</p> <p>4. A plaintiff is not entitled, as a matter of right, to an examination of .defendant’s books and papers to an extent requisite to enable him to make sufficient allegations to sustain his actions. His ground of attack should be sufficiently explicit to enable him to compel his adversary to produce needful books and papers on the trial.</p> <p>5. Agreement of counsel, subject to different constructions, will not be taken in the presence of a disagreement as to the extent it was intended to include.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that ALJ’s determination was supported by substantial evidence because, even though the ALJ did not assign controlling weight to any one opinion, there was not an absence of opinion evidence when the ALJ discussed each opinion in formulating the RFC
- finding the ALJ properly assigned “little weight” to the opinions of consultative medical sources that “included fewer mental and physical work-related limitations” than the ALJ included in the RFC assessment
- finding the ALJ properly assigned “little weight” to the opinions of consultative medical sources that “included fewer mental and physical work-related limitations” than the ALJ included in the RFC assessment
- ALJ appropriately assigned “little weight” to psychiatric NP’s opinion due to inconsistencies with other evidence
- where the ALJ discussed four separate opinions relating to plaintiff’s work-related limitations, there was not a complete absence of opinion evidence relating to plaintiff’s work-related limitations
- where the ALJ discussed four separate opinions relating to Plaintiff’s work-related limitations, there was not a complete absence of opinion evidence relating to Plaintiff’s work-related limitations
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Breaux
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced 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.