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.

  • Duchamp v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 916 So. 2d 498 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    Joseph v. Broussard Rice Mill, Inc., 00-0628, pp. 4-5 (La.10/30/00), (internal citations omitted).
  • Jyi H. Steen v. State of La., Dotd La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
  • Steen v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation & Development 903 So. 2d 1218 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
    Joseph v. Broussard Rice Mill, Inc., 00-628 (La.10/30/00), .
  • Smith v. State 899 So. 2d 516 La. 2005
    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), ).
  • Poche v. Allstate Ins. Co. 900 So. 2d 55 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
    See: Justice Victory's concurring opinion in Joseph v. Broussard Rice Mill, Inc., 00-628, p. 18 (La.10/30/00); .
  • Brown v. State 896 So. 2d 1136 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
    469 So.2d at 974 See also, Joseph v. Broussard Rice Mill, Inc., XXXX-XXXX (La.10/30/00), .
  • Clark v. Matthews 891 So. 2d 799 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
    Joseph v. Broussard Rice Mill, Inc., 00-0628, p. 4 (La.1/30/00), ; Cao , 04-242 at 6, 881 So.2d at 1281 ; Mills v. Jaume, 02-668, p. 4 (La.App.
  • Daniel K. Murchison v. Lyndon Property Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    10/30/00), sets forth the criteria in determining when a JNOV is proper.
  • Murchison v. Lyndon Property Ins. Co. 896 So. 2d 214 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    Although the Article does not specify the grounds on which a trial judge may grant a JNOV, the 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.
  • Law v. STATE EX REL. DEPT. OF TRANSP. 909 So. 2d 1000 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
    Joseph v. Broussard Rice Mill, Inc., XXXX-XXXX, p. 4 (La.10/30/00), .
  • Trunk v. Med. Center of La. at New Orleans 885 So. 2d 534 La. 2004
    Joseph v. Broussard Rice Mill, Inc., 00-0628, pp. 4-5 (La.10/30/00), (internal citations omitted).
  • Cao v. Schaffer 881 So. 2d 1277 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
    Joseph v. Broussard Rice Mill, Inc., 00-0628, p. 4 (La.1/30/00), ; Mills v. Jaume, 02-668, p. 4 (La.App.
  • Andrews v. Dufour 882 So. 2d 15 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
    See also, Joseph v. Broussard Rice Mill, Inc., XXXX-XXXX, p. 5 (La.10/30/00), .
  • Torrejon v. Mobil Oil Co. 876 So. 2d 877 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
    In Joseph v. Broussard Mill, Inc., XXXX-XXXX (La.10/30/00), , the Supreme Court reiterated that same standard and added that "[i]n making this determination, the trial court should not evaluate the credibility of the witnesses, and all reasonable inferences or factual questions should be resolved in favor of the non-moving party."
  • James Helper, Elizabeth Gail Helper, Etc. v. Dr. Chih Hao Lin La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
  • Hepler v. Lin 869 So. 2d 969 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    3 Cir. 6/26/02), , writ denied, 02-2385 (La.11/22/02), , quoting Joseph v. Broussard Rice Mill, Inc., 00-628, p. 4 (La.10/30/00), .
  • Labatut v. Air Products, Inc. 874 So. 2d 219 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
    Joseph v. Broussard Rice Mill, Inc., 2000-0628, p. 4 (La.10/30/00), .
  • Campbell v. Tork, Inc. 870 So. 2d 968 La. 2004
    Joseph v. Broussard Rice Mill, Inc. 00-0638 (La.10/30/00), (citing Smith v. American Indem.
  • Moore v. Kenilworth/Kailas Properties 865 So. 2d 884 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
    Joseph v. Broussard Rice Mill, Inc., 2000-0628, p. 6 (La.10/30/00), , citing Feurtado v. Zapata Gulf Marine Corp., 99-1510, p. 7 (La.App.
  • Justin Douglas Henderson v. Brian Sellers La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
  • Henderson v. Sellers 861 So. 2d 923 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
    Joseph v. Broussard Rice Mill, Inc., 00-628 (La.10/30/00), .
  • Quinn v. GGS, L.L.C. 862 So. 2d 324 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
  • Simoneaux v. Amoco Production Co. 860 So. 2d 560 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    Joseph v. Broussard Rice Mill, Inc., XXXX-XXXX, p. 4 (La.10/30/00), .
  • Misewicz v. Gamso 860 So. 2d 119 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
    See also Joseph v. Broussard Rice Mill, Inc., XXXX-XXXX (La.10/30/00), .
  • Boylston v. Tidwell 852 So. 2d 1256 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
    In considering a motion for new trial under art.1972, “the trial court may evaluate the evidence without favoring either party; it may draw its own inferences and conclusions; and evaluate witness credibility to determine whether the jury had erred in giving too much credence to an unreliable witness.” Joseph v. Broussard Rice Mill, 00-0628 (La.10/30/00), .
  • Davis v. Witt 851 So. 2d 1119 La. 2003
    Joseph v. Broussard Rice Mill, Inc., 00-0628 (La.10/30/00), (citing Smith v. American Indem.
  • Cupit v. State 847 So. 2d 36 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
    Joseph v. Broussard Rice Mill, 00-0628 (La.10/30/00), ; Smith v. American Indem.
  • Chenevert v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 838 So. 2d 922 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    Joseph v. Broussard Rice Mill, Inc., 00-0628 (La.10/30/00), .
  • Mills v. Jaume 836 So. 2d 282 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
    Joseph v. Broussard Rice Mill, Inc., 00-0628, p. 8-9 (La.10/30/00), .
  • Davis v. Witt 831 So. 2d 1075 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
    Joseph v. Broussard Rice Mill, Inc., 00-628 (La.10/30/00); .
  • Wingfield v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation & Development 835 So. 2d 785 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    Joseph v. Broussard Rice Mill, Inc., 2000-0628, p. 5 (La.10/30/00), .
  • Wingfield v. STATE, DEPT. OF TRANSP. 835 So. 2d 785 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    Joseph v. Broussard Rice Mill, Inc., XXXX-XXXX, p. 5 (La.10/30/00), .
  • Estevez v. Baron 828 So. 2d 725 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
    Joseph v. Broussard Rice Mill, Inc., 00-0628, p. 8-9 (La.10/30/00), .
  • Yohn v. Brandon 835 So. 2d 580 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    Joseph v. Broussard Rice Mill, Inc., XXXX-XXXX, p. 5 (La.10/30/00), .
  • Day v. Ouachita Parish School Bd. 823 So. 2d 1039 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
    This court specifically stated in Foster , "Thus, hedonic damages are included in `general damages.'" Justice Jeffrey P. Victory, in his assigned reasons in Joseph v. Broussard Rice Mill, Inc., XXXX-XXXX (La.10/30/00), , stated that "[the Louisiana Supreme] Court has never squarely addressed the issue of awarding hedonic damages for loss of enjoyment of life as a separate element of damages...."
  • Sturlese v. Six Chuter, Inc. 822 So. 2d 173 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
    Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict In Joseph v. Broussard Rice Mill, Inc., 00-0628 (La.10/30/00); , the Louisiana Supreme Court explained that La.Code Civ.P.
  • Johnston v. Hendricks 821 So. 2d 643 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
    Martin, supra; Joseph v. Broussard Rice Mill, Inc., 00-0628 (La.10/30/00), .
  • LeBleu v. Safeway Ins. Co. of Louisiana 824 So. 2d 422 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
    However, as Justice Victory observed in his concurring opinion in Joseph v. Broussard Rice Mill, Inc., 00-628, p. 18 (La.10/30/00); , the Louisiana Supreme Court "has never squarely addressed the issue of awarding hedonic damages for loss of enjoyment of life as a separate element of damages."
  • Junot v. Morgan 818 So. 2d 152 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    Joseph v. Broussard Rice Mill, Inc., 00-0628, p. 5 (La.10/30/00), .
  • Matos v. Clarendon Nat. Ins. Co. 808 So. 2d 841 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    As Justice Victory stated in his assigned additional reasons in Joseph v. Broussard Rice Mill, Inc., 2000-628, p. 18 (La.10/30/00), (Victory, J., assigns additional reasons), "the Louisiana Supreme Court has never squarely addressed the issue of awarding hedonic damages for loss of enjoyment of life as a separate element of damages."
  • VaSalle v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 801 So. 2d 331 La. 2001
    Joseph v. Broussard Rice Mill, Inc., 00-0628, pp. 4-5 (La.10/30/00), (citations omitted).
  • Fontenot v. Southwestern Offshore Corp. 787 So. 2d 588 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
    See Joseph v. Broussard Rice Mill, Inc., 00-628 (La.10/30/00); .
  • Davis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 785 So. 2d 819 La. 2001
    LEMMON, J., Concurring in the Denial of Rehearing In Joseph v. Broussard Rice Mill, Inc., 00-0628 (La.10/30/00), , this court reversed the conditional granting of a new trial because, among other reasons, the trial judge did not specify any grounds for his decision, as required by La.Code Civ.
  • Martin v. Heritage Manor South 784 So. 2d 627 La. 2001
    Joseph v. Broussard Rice Mill, Inc., 00-0628 (La.10/30/00), (citing Smith v. American Indem.