· 7/1/1902

Speyrer v. Miller

Citations

108 La. 204

Syllabus

Syllabus. 1. Where a homestead is seized and the seizure is enjoined, the matter In dispute in the injunction suit is the homestead, and not the amount of the judgment sought to be executed; and the injunction suit must be filed In another court than that of the seizure if the latter court has not jurisdiction ratione materiae. 2. Where the land and movables claimed as homestead are seized in a Justice of the Peace Court and an injunction is sued out in the District Court, the movables may be included in the injunction notwithstanding that the Justice of the Peace Court would have jurisdiction as to them. S.An affidavit for injunction in these words: “I swear that all the facts contained in the foregoing petition are true,” is sufficient. i. Where the amount in which bond should be given has not been fixed by the judge the injunction must be dissolved; and cannot be saved by invocation of the doctrine that an injunction will not be dissolved where it appears that another writ could be sued out immediately. 5. The practice of including in one injunction several separate seizures made by creditors between whom there is no privity, is not to be encouraged, and can be sanctioned only in highly exceptional cases, where evidently no inconvenience can be occasioned. to the defendants in injunction and no complication can possibly arise. 6. An order requiring a bond to' be given in favor of each of the defendants is not complied with by giving bond in favor of the defendants jointly. 7. Statutory damages on the dissolution of an injunction will not be allowed where, the merits not having been gone into, the court cannot say that the equitable remedy of injunction has been abused.

How courts have described this case

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

noting that the mere presence of non-exertional limitations does not foreclose reliance on the grids alone
finding ALJ properly discussed treating phycologist’s opinion concerning functional limitations when determining claimant’s RFC
“But Arias is distinguishable because the ALJ in Arias ignored what the court characterized as ‘potentially significant factors’ and omitted certain testimony ‘without explanation.’”
“It is within an ALJ’s discretion to resolve ‘genuine conflicts in the medical evidence.’” (quoting Veino v. Barnhart, 312 F.3d 578, 588 (2d Cir. 2002))
“It is within an ALJ’s discretion to resolve ‘genuine conflicts in the medical evidence.’” (quoting Veino v. Barnhart, 312 F.3d 578, 588 (2d Cir. 2002)
the ALJ has discretion to weigh the consistency of the claimant’s allegations and is not required to accept them without question

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Blanchard, Provosty

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.