Case ID: so2d_153/html/0883-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "SANDERS, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

244 La. 669
    Hules (Hulis) RUDISON v. MICHIGAN MILLERS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY and the Liverpool & London & Globe Insurance Company Limited.
    No. 46800.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 14, 1963.
   In re: Hules (Hulis) Rudison applying for certiorari, or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of Tangipahoa. 152 So.2d 407.

Writ refused. While it appears that the Court of Appeal made an incorrect statement of the law with respect to burden of proof shifting to plaintiff, it further appears that on the facts found by said Court the result is correct.

SANDERS, J.,

concurs in the view of the majority that the statement of law to the effect that the burden of proof shifts by virtue of a presumption that the plaintiff was the arsonist is erroneous, but is of the further opinion that the erroneous assertion is so interwoven in the rationale of the decision that a writ should be granted to reexamine the correctness of the result.