Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite VaSalle v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 801 So. 2d 331.

76 citing documents.

Wanda Anderson v. Guzzino Commercial, LLC. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2024
Louis R. Koerner, Jr. v. Certain Underwriters At Lloyd's London, Syndicates 0623 And 2623, Ms. Andrea St. Paul … La. 2024
Nancy Joan Hays and William Robert Hays, Sr. v. H2COW Properties, LLC d/b/a Walk-Ons Restaurant La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2023
Alisa Alan Durkheimer v. Tranise L. Landry La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2023
See also VaSalle v. Wal- Mart Stores, Inc., 01-0462, p. 11 (La.11/28/01), - 39, The rigorous standard of JNOV is based upon the principle that “when there is a jury, the jury is the trier of fact.” Joseph, 00-0628 at p. 5, 772 So.2d at 99 (quoting Scott v. Hospital Serv.
Chandler Groceries, Inc. v. Ayoub Ali La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
Bryan Arnold Richman, Jr. v. the Travelers Indemnity Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
Alvin Fairburn & Associates, LLC v. Marshall Henry Harris and Cindy Wale La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2021
Melanie Henry v. The Board of Supervisors of the Louisiana Community and Technical College System, and Earl Meador, … La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2020
Joseph Davis v. Christie Wheeler and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2020
Stevens Construction & Design, L.L.C. v. St. Tammany Fire Protection District No. 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2020
Stevens Construction & Design, L.L.C. v. St. Tammany Fire Protection District No. 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2020
Stevens Construction & Design, L.L.C. v. St. Tammany Fire Protection District No. 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2020
Denee Ashley Pike and Trent Pike v. Calcasieu Parish School Board La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
11/28/01), a case in which a trial court granted a JNOV on damages and the appellate court affirmed.
Pike v. Calcasieu Parish Sch. Bd. 272 So. 3d 943 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
11/28/01), , a case in which a trial court granted a JNOV on damages and the appellate court affirmed.
Duhe v. DCR Indus. Servs., Inc. 267 So. 3d 723 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
Myles v. Hosp. Serv. Dist. No. 1 of Tangipahoa Parish 248 So. 3d 545 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
11/28/01), , 342 ("Because we have previously concluded [in reversing the JNOV] that the jury's verdict is reasonable in light of the evidence presented, we find that plaintiffs are not entitled to a new trial."); Yohn v. Brandon, 2001-1896, pp. 11-12 (La.
Willie Brown, Jr. v. Breaux Bridge Ventures, LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
Brown v. Breaux Bridge Ventures, LLC 239 So. 3d 319 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
Bayer v. Starr International Corp. 226 So. 3d 514 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
Land v. Kohl's Department Stores, Inc. 212 So. 3d 1166 La. 2017
11/28/01), (”[H]ad the trial court signed the proposed order granting defendants a new trial, that order would also have been interlocutory and not appealable.”); Miller v. Chicago Ins.
Hazelett v. Louisiana-1 Gaming 210 So. 3d 447 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
Ruben Kilber v. Pnk (Lake Charles), LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
Fuller v. D.L. Peterson Trust Co. 197 So. 3d 244 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
See also VaSalle v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 01-0462 (La.11/28/01), .
Pitts v. Louisiana Medical Mutual Insurance Co. 197 So. 3d 221 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
ing the JNOV] that the jury’s verdict was reasonable in light of the evidence presented, we find that plaintiff-is not entitled to a new trial.”); Davis v. Witt, 2002-3102, p. 23 (La.7/2/03), (“When any fair interpretation of the evidence supports the jury’s verdict, the grant of a new trial must be reversed.”); VaSalle v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 2001-0462, p. 18 (La.11/28/01), (“Because *237 we have previously concluded [in reversing the JNOV] that the jury’s verdict is reasonable in light of the
In re Edward Wisner Donation 150 So. 3d 391 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
11/28/01), (where the Louisiana Supreme Court held when the trial court fails to rule on a demand raised by the pleadings, the silence in the judgment is deemed a rejection of the demand).
Julie O'Dell Carter v. James D. Carter La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
11/28/01), “[i]t is well-settled that prior to final judgment a district court may, at its discretion and on its own motion, change the result of interlocutory rulings it finds to be erroneous.” Additionally, it is equally well settled that “[w]ritten reasons for judgment are considered to be interlocutory rulings and
Distinguished Kimberly Collins, Indiv., Etc. v. Louisiana State Police dept.of Public & Safety La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
11/28/01), several doctors offered conflicting testimony about the severity of the plaintiff‟s injuries and the causal relationship of her later physical condition to the injury that was the subject of the lawsuit.
Distinguished Collins v. Louisiana State Police 158 So. 3d 17 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
In VaSalle v. Wal-Mart Stores, 01-462 (La.11/28/01), , several doctors offered conflicting testimony about the severity of the plaintiffs injuries and the causal relationship of her later physical condition to the injury that was the subject of the lawsuit.
Deutsche Bank Trust Co. America v. Ochoa 120 So. 3d 735 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
3 Cir. 3/1/06), ; VaSalle v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 01-462, p. 8 (La.11/28/01), .
Corona v. Teaford 116 So. 3d 795 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
In reviewing a JNOV, an appellate court must determine “whether the trial judge erred in granting the JNOV by using the aforementioned criteria in the same way as the trial judge in deciding whether to grant the motion.” VaSalle v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 01-0462, pp. 11-12 (La.11/28/01), .
Babin v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 113 So. 3d 251 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
Trunk v. Medical Center of Louisiana at New Orleans, 04-0181, p. 4 (La.10/19/04), , 537, 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 .
Caldwell Parish School Board v. Louisiana Machinery Co. 110 So. 3d 993 La. 2013
Moreover, in Vasalle v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 01-0462 (La.11/28/01), , this Court questioned whether there is any formal procedural means for a litigant to ask a trial court to reconsider an earlier judgment: Wal-Mart argues that plaintiffs’ motion seeking reconsideration of their *998 original motion for JNOV, filed February 18, 1999, was untimely and unauthorized by the Code of Civil
Courtney v. Fletcher Trucking 111 So. 3d 411 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
While a trial court may change its ruling on an interlocutory matter, such as the denial of an exception, when it timely but later determines error of judgment based upon the matter as submitted or upon subsequent disclosures in the record, VaSalle v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2001-0462 (La.11/28/01), -335 , we find no merit to Maximum Leisure’s apparent assertion that in reconsidering the issue, the OWC judge was required to ignore the testimony presented at the hearing on the exceptions.
Marcus Broussard, Jr. v. Martin Operating Partnership La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
See also VaSalle v. Wal- Mart Stores, Inc., 01-0462, p. 11 (La.11/28/01), - 39.
Broussard v. Martin Operating Partnership 103 So. 3d 713 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
See also VaSalle v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 01-0462, p. 11 (La.11/28/01), -39 .
Wood v. Humphries 103 So. 3d 1105 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
ncluded [in reversing the JNOV] that the jury’s verdict was reasonable in light of the evidence presented, we find that plaintiff is not entitled to a new trial.”); Davis v. Witt, 02-3102 (La.7/2/03), (“When any fair interpretation of the evidence supports the jury’s verdict, the grant of a new trial must be reversed.”); VaSalle v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 01-0462 (La.11/28/01), (“Because we have previously concluded [in reversing the JNOV] that the jury’s verdict is reasonable in light of the evid
Cece Sloan v. Renee Mouton La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
11/28/01), holding that a ruling giving defendants a choice between additur and new trial is an interlocutory ruling, not a final judgment, as it does not determine the merits of the action.
Sloan v. Mouton 82 So. 3d 364 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
See VaSalle v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 01-462 (La.11/28/01), , holding that a ruling giving defendants a choice between additur and new trial is an interlocutory ruling, not a final judgment, as it does not determine the merits of the action.
Elfers v. AIG National Insurance 80 So. 3d 585 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
Art. 1914 C; VaSalle v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 01-0462, pp. 8-9 (La.11/28/01), .
Lastrapes v. Progressive Security Insurance Co. 51 So. 3d 659 La. 2010
See VaSalle v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 01-0462 (La.11/28/01), (holding jury properly declined to award damages for loss of consortium despite testimony from a husband that his wife “was hard to live with” and that the couple was “grouchier with each other” and “their sex life was not as active as it once was”).
Reasonover v. LASTRAPES 40 So. 3d 303 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
VaSalle v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2001-0462, p. 4 (La.11/28/01), .
Glenn M. Hebert v. J. Elise Shelton La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
Hebert v. Shelton 11 So. 3d 1197 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
3 Cir. 3/1/06) , (citing Sun Finance Co., ); VaSalle v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 01-462 (La.11/28/01), .
Durapau v. Kallenborn 13 So. 3d 1201 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
VaSalle v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 01-0462 (La.l 1/28/01), .
Zachary Financial, Inc. v. Darjean 5 So. 3d 315 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Forbes v. Cockerham 5 So. 3d 839 La. 2009
Trunk , XXXX-XXXX, p. 5, 885 So.2d at 537 ; VaSalle v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., XXXX-XXXX, p. 11-12 (La.11/28/01), .
In Re Gramercy Plant Explosion at Kaiser 982 So. 2d 763 La. 2008
And this court in VaSalle v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 01-0462 (La.11/28/01), , after reversing the JNOV and new trial order, simply reinstated the jury verdict, without *764 any instruction to the district court; therefore, this court in VaSalle did not address whether an appeal on the merits might lie from the reinstated jury verdict.
Forbes v. Cockerham 985 So. 2d 86 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
rsing the JNOV] that the jury's verdict was reasonable in light of the evidence presented, we find that plaintiff is not entitled to a new trial"); Davis v. Witt, XXXX-XXXX, p. 23 (La.7/2/03), ("When any fair interpretation of the evidence supports the jury's verdict, the grant of a new trial must be reversed"); VaSalle v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., XXXX-XXXX, p. 18 (La.11/28/01), ("Because we have previously concluded [in reversing the JNOV] that the jury's verdict [was] reasonable in *122 light of
SIGNAL v. Anderson 973 So. 2d 933 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
*939 VaSalle v. Wal-Mart, Stores, Inc., 01-0462, p. 11-12 (La.11/28/01), .
Nguyen v. Grafton 962 So. 2d 488 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2007
In Vasalle v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 01-0462 (La.11/28/01), , the La.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by