Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Benoit v. Allstate Ins. Co., 773 So. 2d 702.

44 citing documents.

In Re: Marshall Legacy Foundation La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2024
11/28/00), the Louisiana Supreme Court focused on the “purpose of the use of the phrase ‘cause of action[]’” in La.Code Civ.P.
Kayla Landry v. State Farm Automobile Insurance Company, Et Al. La. 2022
11/28/00), ); Hall v. Brookshire Bros., Ltd., 02-2404, p. 23 (La.
Stephen Swarthout v. Roger Driggers La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
Joy Richard v. Calcasieu Cameron Hospital Service D/B/A West Calcasieu Cameron Hospital La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
11/28/00), wherein the supreme court observed that: Because La.Code Civ.
Guidry v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 263 So. 3d 943 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
22:1295(1)(a)(i) and the Louisiana Supreme Court's holding in Benoit v. Allstate Insurance Co. , , 705 (La.
Ewell J. Gaspard, Et Ux. v. Usaa Casualty Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
11/28/00), which addressed the monetary threshold for a party‘s right to a trial by a jury.
Engine 22, LLC v. Land & Structure, LLC 220 So. 3d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
Leeanna Anthony v. Blakes Auto Sales La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
[Benoit v. Allstate Ins., 00-424, (La.11/28/00), ].
Holly D. Swayze v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company 172 So. 3d 1026 La. 2015
11/28/00), analyzed the 1989 amendment to La.
Beggs v. Harrah's New Orleans Casino 158 So. 3d 917 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
Co., 2000-0424 (La.11/28/00), , the Louisiana Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether a trial court could award damages in excess of a stipulated amount and then reduce those damages by the plaintiffs percentage of fault, thereby bringing the actual amount awarded within the stipulated limit.
Shermane Hector v. Mo Dad Environmental Serv., LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
Co., 2000-0424 (La.11/28/00)
Hector v. Mo-Dad Environmental Serv., LLC 134 So. 3d 133 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Co., 2000-0424 (La.l1/28/00), .
Animal Legal Defense Fund v. State, Department of Wildlife & Fisheries 140 So. 3d 8 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
Benoit v. Allstate Insurance Company, 2000-0424 (La.11/28/00), .
Blanchard v. Blanchard 112 So. 3d 243 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Co., 00-0424 (La.11/28/00), .
Samuel E. Russell v. Shetler Mutual Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
Russell v. Shelter Mutual Insurance Co. 38 So. 3d 561 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
Miller v. Lammico, 07-1352 (La.1/16/08), and Bullock v. Graham, 96-711 (La.11/1/96), , abrogated on other grounds, Benoit v. Allstate Insurance, 00-424 (La.11/28/00), .
Hood v. Cotter 5 So. 3d 819 La. 2008
Reese v. State, 03-1615, p. 3 (La.2/20/04), ; Industrial Cos., 02-0665 at p. 12, 837 So.2d at 1216 ; Benoit v. Allstate Ins., 00-0424, p. 10 (La.11/28/00), .
Miller v. Lammico 973 So. 2d 693 La. 2008
Co., 00-0424 (La.11/28/00), and Stevens v. Winn-Dixie of Louisiana, 95-0435 (La.
Pomier v. Moreland 951 So. 2d 486 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
Co., 00-0424 (La.11/28/00), , the supreme court examined the methods used by various courts of appeal in cases dealing with jurisdictional limits and stipulations limiting a plaintiff's recovery to a certain amount.
John Pomier v. Robert Moreland La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
11/28/00), the supreme court examined the methods used by various courts of appeal in cases dealing with jurisdictional limits and stipulations limiting a plaintiff’s recovery to a certain amount.
Paul Darren Williams v. State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co. and Venson R. Aymond La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
11/28/00), they agreed that their respective cause of action did not exceed $50,000.
Williams v. Aymond 945 So. 2d 823 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
art. 1732 and the Louisiana Supreme Court case of Benoit v. Allstate, 00-424 (La.11/28/00), , they agreed that their respective cause of action did not exceed $50,000.
Schoeffler v. Drake Hunting Club 919 So. 2d 822 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Benoit v. Allstate Ins., XXXX-XXXX, p. 10 (La.11/28/00), .
Harold Schoeffler v. Drake Hunting Club La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Gibbs v. Delatte 927 So. 2d 1131 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
Citing Benoit v. Allstate Ins., XXXX-XXXX, p. 10 (La.11/28/00), .
Hill v. Coregis Ins. Co. 911 So. 2d 939 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
Co., XXXX-XXXX (La.11/28/00), .
Adams v. CSX Railroads 904 So. 2d 13 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
Co., 00-0424 (La.11/28/00), .
Spencer v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation & Development 887 So. 2d 35 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
Co., 00-0424 (La.11/28/00), , the plaintiff had settled with the tortfeasor and its insurer for $100,000, and the case proceeded to trial against the remaining defendant, plaintiffs uninsured motorist insurance (UM) carrier.
Spencer v. STATE EX REL. DOTD 887 So. 2d 35 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
Co., 00-0424 (La.11/28/00), , the plaintiff had settled with the tortfeasor and its insurer for $100,000, and the case proceeded to trial against the remaining defendant, plaintiff's uninsured motorist insurance (UM) carrier.
McCarter v. Sanchez 874 So. 2d 918 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
art. 1732 provides that a jury trial is not available in “[a] suit where the amount of no individual petitioner’s cause of action exceeds fifty thousand dollars exclusive of interests and costs.” In Benoit v. Allstate Insurance Co., 2000-0424 (La.11/28/00), , the Louisiana Supreme Court discussed article 1732 as follows: [W]e interpret the language change in the 1989 amendment [to article 1732] as intended to focus, not on the amount of the plaintiffs overall claim arising out of the transaction
Reese v. STATE DEPT. OF PUBLIC SAFETY 866 So. 2d 244 La. 2004
(citing Benoit v. Allstate Ins., 00-0424, p. 10 (La.11/28/00), ).
Gregory E. Williams v. Pamela Quinn La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
11/28/00), the supreme court examined the methods used by various courts of appeal in cases dealing with jurisdictional limits and stipulations limiting a plaintiff’s recovery to a certain amount.
Williams v. Quinn 858 So. 2d 873 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Co., 00-0424 (La.11/28/00), , the supreme court examined the methods used by various courts of appeal in cases dealing with jurisdictional limits and stipulations limiting a plaintiffs recovery to a certain amount.
Hall v. Brookshire Bros., Ltd. 848 So. 2d 559 La. 2003
Co., XXXX-XXXX (La.11/28/00), , as support for its method of calculation.
Book v. STATE FARM MUT. AUTO. INS. CO. 843 So. 2d 515 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
Co., 00-0424 (La.11/28/00), the Louisiana Supreme Court discussed La.Code Civ.P.
Book v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 843 So. 2d 515 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Co., 00-0424 (La.11/28/00), the Louisiana Supreme Court discussed La.Code Civ.P.
Irsch v. Argonaut Great Cent. Ins. Co. 841 So. 2d 831 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
Industrial Companies, Inc. v. Durbin 837 So. 2d 1207 La. 2003
Benoit v. Allstate Ins., XXXX-XXXX, p. 10 (La.11/28/00), (emphasis added).
Dubroc v. Swain 833 So. 2d 538 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
Co., 00-0424 (La.11/28/00), .
Guidry v. Millers Cas. Ins. Co. 822 So. 2d 675 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
See Bullock v. Graham, 96-0711 (La.11/1/96), , overruled in part on other grounds, Benoit v. Allstate Insurance Company, 00-0424 (La.11/28/00), .
Wallace v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 821 So. 2d 704 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
Co., XXXX-XXXX (La.11/28/00), .
Phillips v. Francis 817 So. 2d 107 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
Co., 00-0424, p. 6 (La.11/28/00); , the supreme court noted, "[t]hat phrase [cause of action] has caused considerable difficulty in judicial interpretation over the years, especially when issues of prescription ...
Rowell v. Stafford 785 So. 2d 26 La. 2001
Co., 2000-0424 (La.11/28/2000), .
Hecker v. State Farm Insurance 785 So. 2d 25 La. 2001
Co., 00-0424 (La.11/28/2000), .