DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Duncan v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co., 773 So. 2d 670.

281 citing documents.

  • Harold Thibodeaux v. Melinda Trahan La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
  • Daigle v. City of Shreveport 78 So. 3d 753 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
    Duncan v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co., 2000-0066 (La.10/30/00), .
  • Thibodeaux v. Trahan 74 So. 3d 850 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    Co., 00-66, p. 13 (La.10/30/00), , cert.
  • Smith v. City of Shreveport 73 So. 3d 496 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
    Duncan v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co., 2000-0066 (La.10/30/00), .
  • Carl Jones, Sr. v. Centerpoint Energy Entex La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
  • Jones v. Centerpoint Energy Entex 66 So. 3d 539 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    Co., 00-66, p. 13 (La.10/30/00), , cert.
  • GARCIE v. Pasquier 70 So. 3d 11 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
    Duncan v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co., 00-0066 (La.10/30/00), .
  • Calvin Dale Miller v. Village of Hornbeck La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    10 3 Cir. 8/8/07), writ denied, 07-1821 (La.11/9/07), the standard of review for a trier of fact’s apportionment of fault was stated as follows: The Louisiana Supreme Court, in Duncan v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co., 00-66, pp. 10-11 (La.10/30/00), -81, set forth the standard for reviewing comparative fault determinations as follows: This Court has previously addressed the allocation of fault and the standard of review to be applied by appellate courts reviewing such determinations.
  • Miller v. Village of Hornbeck 65 So. 3d 784 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    App. Cir. 8/8/07), , writ denied, 07-1821 (La.11/9/07), , the standard of review for a trier of fact’s apportionment of fault was stated as follows: The Louisiana Supreme Court, in Duncan v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co., 00-66, pp. 10-11 (La.10/30/00), -81 , set forth the standard for reviewing comparative fault determinations as follows: This Court has previously addressed the allocation of fault and the standard of review to be applied by appellate courts reviewing such determinations.
  • Brock v. Singleton 65 So. 3d 649 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    10/30/00), ) (citations omitted).
  • Munch v. Backer 63 So. 3d 181 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    Co., 2000-0066, p. 13 (La.10/30/00), .
  • Williams v. Ruben Residential Properties, LLC 58 So. 3d 534 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
    Co., 2000-0066 (La.10/30/00), .
  • Mixter v. Wilson 54 So. 3d 1164 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2010
    Co., 00-0066 (La.10/30/00), -83 (quoting Keeth v. Dep't.
  • Joseph v. Archdiocese of New Orleans 52 So. 3d 203 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    The Louisiana Supreme Court in Duncan v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co., 00-0066, p. 17 (La.10/30/00), , stated: “Awards will not be made in the absence of medical testimony that they are indicated and setting out their probable cost.” The plaintiff must show that future medical expenses more probably than not will be incurred, he must show that they are needed, and he must supply estimates of their probable cost.
  • Howard v. Union Carbide Corp. 50 So. 3d 1251 La. 2010
    Civ.Code art. 2324.1; Duncan v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co., 00-0066 (La.10/30/00), .
  • Moody v. Cummings 37 So. 3d 1054 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    Co., 00-0066, p. 13 (La.10/30/00), ; Youn, 623 So.2d at 1260 ).
  • Brewer v. J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc. 35 So. 3d 230 La. 2010
  • Roosevelt Sampson v. Fred J. Rabalais La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
  • Mac Normand v. Village of Hessmer La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
  • Normand v. VILLAGE OF HESSMER 18 So. 3d 801 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
  • Watters v. Department of Social Services 15 So. 3d 1128 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    Duncan v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co., 00-0066, pp. 10-11 (La.10/30/00); -81 .
  • Lewis v. ODECO, INC. 12 So. 3d 363 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    In Duncan v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co., 2000-0066, p. 13 (La.10/30/00), , the Louisiana Supreme Court stated: General damages are those which may not be fixed with pecuniary exactitude; instead, they “involve mental or physical pain or suffering, inconvenience, the loss of intellectual gratification or physical enjoyment, or other losses of life or lifestyle which cannot be definitel
  • Herman Singleton v. Hector Martinez La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
    10/30/00), -83: General damages are those which may not be fixed with pecuniary exactitude; instead, they “involve mental or physical pain or suffering, inconvenience, the loss of intellectual gratification or physical enjoyment, or other losses of life o
  • Patrick E. Phillips, Jr. v. G & H Seed Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
    10/30/00), -76: In order to determine whether liability exists under the facts of a particular case, our Court has adopted a duty-risk analysis.
  • Phillips v. G & H Seed Co., Inc. 10 So. 3d 339 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    The supreme court explained the duty-risk method of determining liability in Duncan v. Kansas City Southern Railway, 00-66, p. 4 (La.10/30/00), , 675-76: In order to determine whether liability exists under the facts of a particular case, our Court has adopted a duty-risk analysis.
  • Jackie Ray Bennet v. City of New Iberia La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
    10/30/00), -81, set forth the standard for reviewing comparative fault determinations as follows: This Court has previously addressed the allocation of fault and the standard of review to be applied by appellate courts reviewing such determinations.
  • Bennet v. City of New Iberia 7 So. 3d 822 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    3 Cir. 8/8/07), , writ denied', 07-1821 (La.11/9/07), , the standard of review for a trier of fact’s apportionment of fault was set forth as follows: The Louisiana Supreme Court, in Duncan v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co., 00-66, pp. 10-11 (La.10/30/00), -81 , set forth the standard for reviewing comparative fault determinations as follows: This Court has previously addressed the allocation of fault and the standard of review to be applied by appellate courts reviewing such determinations.
  • Graffia v. Louisiana Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co. 6 So. 3d 270 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    Duncan v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co., 00-0066 (La.10/30/00), .
  • Quinn L. Ducote, Et Ux. v. Union Pacific Railroad Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
  • Ducote v. Union Pacific Railroad 4 So. 3d 240 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    Co., 00-0066 (La.10/30/00), .
  • Prejean v. Rabalais 998 So. 2d 1225 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    3 Cir. 8/8/07), , writ denied, 07-1821 (La.11/9/07), , this court set forth the standard of review for a trier of fact's apportionment of fault: The Louisiana Supreme Court, in Duncan v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co., 00-66, pp. 10-11 (La.10/30/00), -81 , set forth the standard for reviewing comparative fault determinations as follows: This Court has previously addressed the allocation of fault and the standard of review to be applied by appellate courts reviewing such determinations.
  • Michael E. Prejean v. Christopher D. Rabalais La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    11/9/07), this court set forth the standard of review for a trier of fact’s apportionment of fault: The Louisiana Supreme Court, in Duncan v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co., 00-66, pp. 10-11 (La.10/30/00), -81, set forth the standard for reviewing comparative fault determinations as follows: -2- This Court has previously addressed the allocation of fault and the standard of review to be applied by appellate courts reviewing
  • Vega v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 996 So. 2d 1164 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
    Duncan v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co., 00-66, p. 13 (La.10/30/00), .
  • Farmer v. PATRICIAN SLP, LLC 997 So. 2d 578 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
  • Adams v. Rhodia, Inc. 983 So. 2d 798 La. 2008
    Duncan v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co., 00-0066, pp. 10-11 (La.10/30/00), .
  • Morella v. Board of Commissioners 988 So. 2d 266 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
    Duncan v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co., 00-0066, pp. 10-11 (La.10/30/00); -681 .
  • Angelo Goutro v. F. G. Sullivan, Jr., Contractor, LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    11/9/07), this court set forth the standard of review for a trier of fact’s apportionment of fault: The Louisiana Supreme Court, in Duncan v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co., 00-66, pp. 10-11 (La.10/30/00), -81, set forth the standard for reviewing comparative fault determinations as follows: This Court has previously addressed the allocation of fault and the standard of review to be applied by appellate courts reviewing such determinations.
  • Goutro v. Sullivan 986 So. 2d 673 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    App. 3 Cir. 8/8/07), , writ denied, 07-1821 (La.11/9/07), , this court set forth the standard of review for a trier of fact's apportionment of fault: The Louisiana Supreme Court, in Duncan v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co., 00-66, pp. 10-11 (La.10/30/00), -81 , set forth the standard for reviewing comparative fault determinations as follows: This Court has previously addressed the allocation of fault and the standard of review to be applied by appellate courts reviewing such determinations.
  • MacK v. Wiley 991 So. 2d 479 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
    The Louisiana Supreme Court, in Duncan v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co., 00-0066 (La.10/30/00), -681 , cert.
  • Bellard v. American Cent. Ins. Co. 980 So. 2d 654 La. 2008
    10/30/00), : General damages are those which may not be fixed with pecuniary exactitude; instead, they "involve mental or physical pain or suffering, inconvenience, the loss of intellectual gratification or physical enjoyment, or other losses of life or life-style which cannot be definitely measured in monetary terms."
  • Bouquet v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 978 So. 2d 326 La. 2008
    10/30/00), ; Anderson v. Welding Testing Lab., Inc.
  • Nicole M. Locks v. State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
  • Cade Harper Howell v. Union Pacific Railroad Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
  • Howell v. Union Pacific Railroad 980 So. 2d 854 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
    Co., 00-0066 (La.10/30/00), .
  • Dufrene v. Gautreau Family, LLC 980 So. 2d 68 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
    Duncan v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co., 00-0066 (La.10/30/00), -683 .
  • Bittner v. Scott 980 So. 2d 5 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
    Duncan v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co., 00-0066 (La.10/30/00), -3 .
  • Hebert v. Rapides Parish Police Jury 974 So. 2d 635 La. 2008
    In Duncan v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co., 00-0066, pp. 10-11(La.10/30/00), -681 , we summarized the standard for reviewing allocation of fault determinations as follows: This Court has previously addressed the allocation of fault and the standard of review to be applied by appellate courts reviewing such determinations.
  • Crisler v. Paige One, Inc. 974 So. 2d 125 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
    In Duncan v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co., XXXX-XXXX (La.10/30/00), , cert.
  • PG Diners, Inc. v. REMSON-HALEY ARCHITECTS 971 So. 2d 1246 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
    The Louisiana Supreme Court, in Duncan v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co., 00-66, pp. 10-11 (La.10/30/00), -81 , set forth the standard for reviewing comparative fault determinations as follows: This Court has previously addressed the allocation of fault and the standard of review to be applied by appellate courts reviewing such determinations.
  • Pg Diners, Inc. v. Remson-Haley Architects, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
    10/30/00), -81, set forth the standard for reviewing comparative fault determinations as follows: This Court has previously addressed the allocation of fault and the standard of review to be applied by appellate courts reviewing such determinations.