DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Joseph v. Broussard Rice Mill, Inc., 772 So. 2d 94.

194 citing documents.

  • Everette Davis, Jr., Et Ux. v. State of La, Thru the Dotd La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    10/30/00), : LA.CODE CIV.
  • Davis v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation & Development 78 So. 3d 190 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    The supreme court set out the criteria for the reviewing court’s evaluation of the trial court’s grant or rejection of a JNOV in Joseph v. Broussard Rice Mill, Inc., 00-628, pp. 4-5 (La.10/30/00), , 99: LA.CODE CIV.
  • Davis v. STATE EX REL. DEPT. OF TRANSP. 78 So. 3d 190 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    The supreme court set out the criteria for the reviewing court's evaluation of the trial court's grant or rejection of a JNOV in Joseph v. Broussard Rice Mill, Inc., 00-628, pp. 4-5 (La.10/30/00), , 99: LA.CODE CIV.
  • Dyna Mitte v. Progressive Security Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    Joseph v. Broussard Rice Mill, Inc., 00-0628, pp. 4-5 (La.10/30/00), (internal citations omitted).
  • Debra Miller and Ed Geaslin v. Pnk, D/B/A L'Auberge Du Lac Casino and Hotel La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    10/30/00), the supreme court recently stated (emphasis added)): The motion should be denied if there is evidence opposed to the motion which is of such quality and weight that reasonable and fair- minded persons in the exercise of impartial judgment might reach different conclusions.
  • Miller v. PNK 76 So. 3d 122 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    In Lastrapes v. Progressive Security Insurance Co., 10-51, p. 5 (La.11/30/10), (quoting Joseph v. Broussard Rice Mill, Inc., 00-0628, pp. 4-5 (La.10/30/00), , the supreme court recently stated (emphasis added)): The motion should be denied if there is evidence opposed to the motion which is of such quality and weight that reasonable and fair-minded persons in the exercise of impartial judgment might reach different conclusions.
  • Active Solutions, L.L.C. v. Dell, Inc. 73 So. 3d 934 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    4 Cir. 10/1/03), , 683-84: [T]he Louisiana Supreme Court in Joseph v. Broussard Mill, 2000-0628, p. 1 (La.10/30/00), , reiterated the criteria it set forth in Scott v. Hospital Serv.
  • Holloway v. State Ex Rel. Board of Supervisors of LSU 66 So. 3d 1222 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    Joseph v. Broussard Rice Mill, 00-0628, pp. 7-8 (La.10/30/00), (citations omitted).
  • Wegener v. Lafayette Insurance Co. 60 So. 3d 1220 La. 2011
    10/30/00), , 99: "JNOV is warranted when the facts and inferences point so strongly and overwhelmingly in favor of one party that the trial court believes that reasonable persons could not arrive at a contrary verdict.
  • Explained Lastrapes v. Progressive Security Insurance Co. 51 So. 3d 659 La. 2010
    In Joseph v. Broussard Rice Mill, Inc., 00-0628, pp. 4-5 (La.10/30/00), , we explained the principles to be applied in determining whether JNOV was appropriate: JNOV is warranted when the facts and inferences point so strongly and overwhelmingly in favor of one party that the trial court believes that reasonable persons could not arrive at a contrary verdict.
  • Joseph v. Archdiocese of New Orleans 52 So. 3d 203 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    The Louisiana Supreme Court in Joseph v. Broussard Rice Mill, Inc., 00-0628, p. 4 (La.10/30/00), , stated: The motion [i.e., JNOV] should be denied if there is evidence opposed to the motion which is of such quality and weight that reasonable and fair-minded persons in the exercise of impartial judgment might reach different | n conclusions....
  • Nancy Taylor v. Progressive Security Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
  • Taylor v. Progressive SEC. Ins. Co. 33 So. 3d 1081 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    The supreme court set out the criteria for the reviewing court’s evaluation of the trial court’s grant or rejection of a JNOV in Joseph v. Broussard Rice Mill, Inc., 00-628, pp. 4-5 (La.10/30/00), .
  • Lewis v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Liability Insurance Co. 36 So. 3d 970 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    Joseph v. Broussard Rice Mill, Inc., 00-0628, p. 4 (La.10/30/00), .
  • 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
    Joseph v. Broussard Rice Mill, Inc., 00-628 (La.10/30/00), .
  • Durapau v. Kallenborn 13 So. 3d 1201 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    10/30/00), (citations omitted).
  • Tina Smoot v. Ken Hernandez La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
    10/30/00), sets forth the criteria in determining when a JNOV is proper.
  • Joseph Graham v. Catherine Bernheimer La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
    10/30/00), the supreme court recognized the trial court’s great discretion in deciding whether a Motion for a New Trial should be granted, and it stated that the applicable standard of review requires the appellate court to evaluate whether the trial court abused that discretion.
  • Smoot v. Hernandez 6 So. 3d 352 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    Although the Article does not specify the grounds on which a trial judge may grant a JNOV, |ñthe supreme court in Joseph v. Broussard Rice Mill, 00-628 (La.10/30/00), , sets forth the criteria in determining when a JNOV is proper.
  • Graham v. Bernheimer 6 So. 3d 343 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    art 1973 provides, “A new trial may be granted in any case if there is good ground therefor, except as otherwise provided by law.” In Joseph v. Broussard Rice Mill, Inc., 00-628 (La.10/30/00), , the supreme court recognized the trial court’s great discretion in deciding whether a Motion for a New Trial should be granted, and it stated that the applicable standard of review requires the appellate court to evaluate whether the trial court abused that discretion.
  • King v. Brown Development, Inc. 4 So. 3d 231 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
    Joseph v. Broussard Rice Mill, Inc., XXXX-XXXX (La.10/30/00), ; Cockerham v. LaSalle Nursing Home, Inc., 2006-10 (La.App.
  • Forbes v. Cockerham 5 So. 3d 839 La. 2009
  • Bigelow v. CRESCENT TITLE, LLC 997 So. 2d 83 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
    Joseph v. Broussard Rice Mill, Inc., 00-0628, p. 4 (La.10/30/00), .
  • Boxie v. Lemoine 988 So. 2d 309 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    The supreme court has set out the criteria for the reviewing court's evaluation of the trial court's grant or rejection of a JNOV in Joseph v. Broussard Rice Mill, Inc., 00-628, p. 4-5, (La.10/30/00), .
  • Sharon Boxie v. Dr. Dwight Lemoine La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
  • Porter v. MONROE HOUSING AUTHORITY 986 So. 2d 852 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
    art. 1811; Joseph v. Broussard Rice Mill, XXXX-XXXX (La.10/30/00), .
  • Bouquet v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 978 So. 2d 326 La. 2008
    10/30/00), (affirming the appellate court's finding that the jury's general damage award was abusively low after it particularized the facts of the injury suffered by the plaintiff).
  • Forbes v. Cockerham 985 So. 2d 86 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
    Joseph v. Broussard Rice Mill, Inc ., XXXX-XXXX, p. 15 (La.10/30/00), .
  • SIGNAL v. Anderson 973 So. 2d 933 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
    Trunk v. Medical Center of Louisiana at New Orleans, 04-0181, pp. 4-5 (La.10/19/04), (citing Joseph v. Broussard Rice Mill, Inc., 00-0628, pp. 4-5 (La.10/30/00), ).
  • Kalil v. HCA Health Services of Louisiana 963 So. 2d 511 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
  • Rose Dove Egle v. John M. Egle, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
    10/30/00), recently reasserted the criteria to be used in evaluating the granting or rejection of a JNOV.
  • Egle v. Egle 963 So. 2d 454 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
    Standard of Review The supreme court, in Joseph v. Broussard Rice Mill, Inc., 00-628, pp. 4-5 (La.10/30/00), , recently reasserted the criteria to be used in evaluating the granting or rejection of a JNOV.
  • Latiolais v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTO INS. CO. 949 So. 2d 455 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    Joseph v. Broussard Rice Mill, Inc., XXXX-XXXX (La.10/30/00) .
  • Hilda Latiolais v. State Farm Mutual Auto ins.co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
  • Harvin v. ANPAC Louisiana Ins. Co. 944 So. 2d 648 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
    The standard of review for determining when a JNOV has been properly granted was reiterated in Joseph v. Broussard Rice Mill, Inc., 00-0628 (La.10/30/00), , as follows: As enunciated in Scott [ Scott v. Hospital Serv.
  • Gerald W. Greer v. State of La., Dotd La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    10/30/00), (internal citations omitted).
  • Greer v. State, ex rel. Department of Transportation & Development 941 So. 2d 141 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
    Joseph v. Broussard Rice Mill, Inc., 00-0628, pp. 4-5 (La.10/30/00), (internal citations omitted).
  • Greer v. STATE EX REL. DEPT. OF TRANSP. 941 So. 2d 141 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    Joseph v. Broussard Rice Mill, Inc., 00-0628, pp. 4-5 (La.10/30/00), (internal citations omitted).
  • Arseneaux v. Gray Ins. Co. 943 So. 2d 521 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
    Trunk v. Medical Center of Louisiana at New Orleans, 04-0181, p. 5 (La.10/19/04), (citing Joseph v. Broussard Rice Mill, Inc., 00-0628, pp. 4-5 (La.10/30/00), ); Smith , 04-1317 at p. 13, 899 So.2d at 525 .
  • Lawson v. Mitsubishi Motor Sales of America 938 So. 2d 35 La. 2006
    [46] This Court referred to its opinion in Lamb when deciding the case of Joseph v. Broussard Rice Mill, Inc., 00-0628 (La.10/30/00); .
  • McGee v. AC AND S, INC. 933 So. 2d 770 La. 2006
    See Joseph v. Broussard Rice Mill, Inc., 00-0628, p. 1 (La.10/30/00), -107 (Victory, J., assigning additional reasons) (stating "this Court has never squarely addressed the issue of awarding hedonic damages for loss of enjoyment of life as a separate element of damages").
  • Thomas v. AP Green Industries, Inc. 933 So. 2d 843 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
    Joseph v. Broussard Rice Mills, Inc., XXXX-XXXX, p. 7 (La.10/30/00), .
  • June Cockerham v. Lasalle Nursing Home, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    Joseph v. Broussard Rice Mill, Inc., 00-0628 (La.10/30/00)
  • Cockerham v. LaSalle Nursing Home, Inc. 930 So. 2d 239 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    Joseph v. Broussard Rice Mill, Inc., 00-0628 (La.10/30/00), .
  • Bell v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. 927 So. 2d 492 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
    10/19/04), , citing Joseph v. Broussard Rice Mill, Inc., 00-0628, pp. 4-5 (La.10/30/00), ; see also VaSalle v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 01-0462, p. 11 (La.11/28/01), -39 .
  • In Re Gramercy Plant Explosion at Kaiser 927 So. 2d 492 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
    Trunk v. Medical Center of Louisiana at New Orleans, 04-0181, p. 4 (La.10/19/04), , citing Joseph v. Broussard Rice Mill, Inc., 00-0628, pp. 4-5 (La.10/30/00), ; see also VaSalle v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 01-0462, p. 11 (La.11/28/01), -39 .
  • Zula Mae Fuselier v. Dept. of Transportation & Develop. of the State of La. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
  • Fuselier v. Department of Transportation & Development 919 So. 2d 867 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
    Joseph v. Broussard Rice Mill, Inc., 00-0628 (La.10/30/00), .
  • Charles Duchamp, Et Ux. v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    Joseph v. Broussard Rice Mill, Inc., 00-0628, pp. 4-5 (La.10/30/00), (internal citations omitted).