Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Davis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 774 So. 2d 84.

229 citing documents.

Explained Davis v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation & Development 78 So. 3d 190 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
As this Court has stated, the decision of “[wjhether to grant a new trial requires a discretionary balancing of many factors.” Davis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 00-0445 (La.11/28/00), ( (La.App.
Explained Davis v. STATE EX REL. DEPT. OF TRANSP. 78 So. 3d 190 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
Davis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 00-0445 (La.11/28/00), ( (La.App.
Marroy v. Hertzak 77 So. 3d 307 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
Davis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 00-0445 (La.11/28/00), .
J.R.A. Inc. v. Essex Insurance Co. 72 So. 3d 862 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
Davis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 00-0445, p. 10 (La.11/28/00), .
Milton v. E & M OIL CO. 47 So. 3d 1091 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
Davis v. Wal-Mart Stores, 2000-0445 (La.11/28/00), ; Melton v. Smith, 41,456 (La.App.
Vappie v. Maumus 36 So. 3d 1123 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Davis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 00-0445, p. 5 (La.11/28/00), ; Torrejon v. Mobil Oil Co., 03-1426, p. 5 (La.App.
Lewis v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Liability Insurance Co. 36 So. 3d 970 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Davis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 00-0445, p. 9 (La.11/28/00), -93 .
Silva v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 38 So. 3d 934 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Davis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 00-445 (La.11/28/00), .
Wegener v. Lafayette Insurance Co. 34 So. 3d 932 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Davis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2000-0445, p. 10 (La.11/28/00), .
Malant v. Willis-Knighton Pierremont Health Center 32 So. 3d 1058 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
DISCUSSION Standard of Review In Davis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2000-0445 (La.11/28/00), , the supreme court reviewed the requirements for granting a JNOV.
Shawn Shelton v. Wal-Mart Louisiana, LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
Shelton v. WAL-MART LOUISIANA, LLC 28 So. 3d 1241 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Davis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 00-445 (La.11/28/00), .
James Lastrapes, Et Ux. v. Progressive Insurance Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
See also Davis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 00-0445 (La.11/28/00)
Lastrapes v. Progressive Security Insurance Co. 24 So. 3d 993 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
See also Davis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 00-0445 (La.11/28/00); .
Charlotte Alfred v. Larry Butler La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
In order to apply this standard, “[w]e are faced with the balancing of two very important concepts: the great deference given to the jury in its fact finding role and the great discretion given to the trial court in deciding whether to grant a new trial.” Davis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 00-445, pp. 11-12 (La.11/28/00), -94.
Alfred v. Butler 28 So. 3d 1089 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
In order to apply this standard, “[w]e are faced with the balancing of two very important concepts: the great deference given to the jury in its fact finding role and the great discretion given to the trial court in deciding whether to grant a new trial.” Davis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 00-445, pp. 11-12 (La.11/28/00), -94 .
Humphrey v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 16 So. 3d 1252 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
In Davis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 00-0445 (La.11/28/00), , the supreme court explained that in a “falling merchandise” case under La.
Granger v. Ridenour 15 So. 3d 384 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Guillory v. Lee 16 So. 3d 1104 La. 2009
Davis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 00-0445, p. 10 (La.11/28/00), .
Linda G. Bonstell v. Brookshire Grocery Company D/B/A Super One Foods La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
11/28/00), wherein the supreme court held that La.R.S.
Kenneth Wayne Jackson v. Brookshire Grocery Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
11/28/00), to support their positions.
BONSTELL v. Brookshire Grocery Co. 15 So. 3d 1112 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
See Davis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 00-445 (La.11/28/00), , wherein the supreme court held that La.R.S.
Jackson v. Brookshire Grocery Co. 11 So. 3d 741 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
l the defendant argues that the plaintiff failed to prove that an unreasonably dangerous condition caused the accident, and that the general damage award was excessive for what was “at most, a three (3) week injury.” LAW AND DISCUSSION Both parties, in their argument before the trial court, and the trial court in its reasons for judgment, cite Davis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 00-445 (La.11/28/00), , to support their positions.
Tina Smoot v. Ken Hernandez La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
See also Davis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 00-0445 (La.11/28/00)
Smoot v. Hernandez 6 So. 3d 352 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
See also Davis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 00-0445 (La.11/28/00); .
MASARIEGOS v. Morgan 5 So. 3d 314 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Ziifle v. Brae Asset Fund, L.P. 8 So. 3d 15 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
*17 “Whether to grant a new trial requires a discretionary balancing of many factors.” Davis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 00-0445 (La.11/28/00), ( (La.App.
Fontenot v. PATTERSON INS. 997 So. 2d 529 La. 2008
Insofar as the trial court granted a JNOV and awarded Fontenot general damages, the court of appeal should review that finding for manifest error using the two-part inquiry set forth by this court in Davis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 00-0445, p. 5 (La.11/28/00), .
Bigelow v. CRESCENT TITLE, LLC 997 So. 2d 83 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
Davis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 00-0445 p. 5 (La.11/28/00), .
Rickey Clark v. Louisiana Medical Mutual Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
Clark v. LOUISIANA MEDICAL MUT. INS. CO. 997 So. 2d 831 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
Davis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 00-0445 (La.11/28/00), .
Cavalier v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation & Development 994 So. 2d 635 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
Davis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 00-0445 (La.11/28/00), .
Cavalier v. STATE, EX REL. DEPT. OF TRANSP. AND DEV. 994 So. 2d 635 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
Davis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 00-0445 (La.11/28/00), .
Boxie v. Lemoine 988 So. 2d 309 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
Davis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 00-445 (La.11/28/00), .
Sharon Boxie v. Dr. Dwight Lemoine La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
Brooks v. Wiley 985 So. 2d 1269 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
Davis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 00-445 (La.11/28/00), .
Dowles v. Conagra, Inc. 980 So. 2d 180 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
Davis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., XXXX-XXXX (La.11/28/00), .
Forbes v. Cockerham 985 So. 2d 86 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
SIGNAL v. Anderson 973 So. 2d 933 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
Davis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 00-0445, p. 4 (La.11/28/00), .
Lee J. Stagg v. National Automotive Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
Terrance v. Dow Chemical Co. 971 So. 2d 1058 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
Davis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 00-0445 (La.11/28/00), -94 .
Kalil v. HCA Health Services of Louisiana 963 So. 2d 511 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
11/28/00), ; Gibson, supra.
The Cowboy Connection, Inc. v. State of La., Dotd La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
Claudia S. Buller, Et Ux. v. Louisiana Farm Bureau Casualty Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
Graves v. Riverwood Intern. Corp. 949 So. 2d 576 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
Davis v. Witt, 02-3102 (La.07/02/03), ; Davis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 00-0445 (La.11/28/00), ; (La.App.
Finley v. "ABC" Insurance Co. 946 So. 2d 330 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
Davis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 00-0445 (La.11/28/00), .
Carey Davis v. Harrah's Lake Charles La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
In order to apply this standard, “[w]e are faced with the balancing of two very important concepts: the great deference given to the jury in its fact finding role and the great discretion given to the trial court in deciding whether to grant a new trial.” Davis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 00-445, pp. 11-12 (La.11/28/00), -94.
Davis v. HARRAH'S LAKE CHARLES, LLC 945 So. 2d 878 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Davis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 00-445, pp. 11-12 (La.11/28/00), -94 .
Explained Perkins v. Allstate Ins. Co. 950 So. 2d 850 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
Davis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., XXXX-XXXX, p. 10 (La.11/28/00), .
Lawson v. Mitsubishi Motor Sales of America 938 So. 2d 35 La. 2006
In Davis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 00-0445 (La.11/28/00); , this Court set *52 forth the requirements incumbent upon a court granting JNOV.