DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Fairchild v. Brian, 354 So. 2d 675.

20 citing documents.

  • Alvin Pete v. State of Louisiana, Department of Corrections La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
    4 Cir.), writ denied, ($150,000.00 for loss of eyesight in one eye when struck with a golf ball); (La.App.
  • Pete v. State 247 So. 3d 1084 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
    4 Cir.), writ denied , ($150,000.00 for loss of eyesight in one eye when struck with a golf ball); Fairchild v. Brian , (La.App.
  • Billy Broussard v. John S. Jester, M.D. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    3 Cir.), writ refused, (La.App.
  • Broussard v. Jester 876 So. 2d 940 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    3 Cir.), writ refused, (La.App.
  • Levron v. State 673 So. 2d 279 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
  • Ricker v. Hebert 655 So. 2d 493 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
    1st Cir.), writ denied, (specialists in colon and rectal cancer, family practice, and diagnostic radiology testified as to standard of care required of specialist in internal medicine in diagnosing colon cancer); (La.App.
  • Nelson v. Pendleton Memorial Hosp. 612 So. 2d 908 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
    Plaintiff further notes that the Smith case, supra, (La.App.
  • Arant v. St. Francis Medical Center, Inc. 605 So. 2d 622 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
    2nd Cir.), writ denied (evidence established that defendant's failure to timely diagnose malignant melanoma caused cancer victim "to fall from the category of persons who would statistically have been expected to survive to the category in which there was almost no chance of survival."); -80 (La.App.
  • Broussard v. Sears Roebuck and Co. 568 So. 2d 225 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
  • Smith v. State Through Dept. HHR 523 So. 2d 815 La. 1988
    2nd Cir.), writ denied (evidence established that defendant's failure to timely diagnose malignant melanoma caused cancer victim "to fall from the category of persons who would statistically have been expected to survive to the category in which there was almost no chance of survival."); -80 (La.App.
  • Stephens v. DeLoach 522 So. 2d 1373 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
    Plaintiff equates this with the failure to diagnose and refer to a (La.App.
  • Smith v. State Through Dept. of HHR 517 So. 2d 1072 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
    The present case can be distinguished from Hastings and the other line of cases cited by plaintiffs, (La.App.
  • Boudreaux v. Panger 481 So. 2d 1382 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
  • Cell-O-Mar, Inc. v. Gros 479 So. 2d 386 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
  • Varnado v. Sanders 477 So. 2d 1205 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    4th Cir.1976), an award of $30,000 for loss of sight, pain and suffering, past and future loss of income was held not to be excessive and within trial judge's "much discretion"; (La.App.
  • Meyers v. Imperial Cas. Indem. Co. 451 So. 2d 649 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
  • Noel v. Demouchette 410 So. 2d 1291 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
  • Graves v. Irwin 396 So. 2d 384 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
  • Gasquet v. Commercial Union Ins. Co. 391 So. 2d 466 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
  • Villetto v. Weilbaecher 377 So. 2d 132 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1979