DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Hall v. Brookshire Bros., Ltd., 848 So. 2d 559.

71 citing documents.

  • Shelton v. Hair 939 So. 2d 685 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    3 Cir. 8/21/02), , writs granted, 02-2404, 02-2421 (La.11/27/02), , and decision affirmed, 02-2404 (La.6/27/03), .
  • Crane v. LaRocca 924 So. 2d 1023 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
    Hall v. Brookshire Brothers, Ltd., 02-2404, p. 12 (La.6/27/03), .
  • Lawrence Menard and Patricia Menard v. Michael R. Holland, M.D. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
  • Menard v. Holland 919 So. 2d 810 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    App. 3 Cir. 8/21/02), , writs granted, 02-2404, (La.11/27/02) , 02-2421 (La.11/27/02), , affirmed, 02-2404, 02-2421 (La.6/27/03), .
  • Jordan v. Willis-Knighton Medical Center 911 So. 2d 351 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
    The PCF argues that this court is bound by the ruling in Hall v. Brookshire Bros., Ltd., 02-2404 (La.6/27/03), .
  • Pamela Sharonette Bartee, Individually and as Tutrix and Administratrix of the Estate of Her Minor Child, Jamie Denise … La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    6/27/03), where a jury found future medical expenses of $3,000,000; LeRay v. Bartholomew, 03-1370 (La.App.
  • Bartee v. CHILD. CLINIC OF SOUTHWEST LOUIS. 910 So. 2d 470 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    See also Hall v. Brookshire Bros., Ltd., 02-2404 (La.6/27/03), , where a jury found future medical expenses of $3,000,000; LeRay v. Bartholomew, 03-1370 (La.App.
  • Mallard Bay Drilling, Inc. v. Kennedy 914 So. 2d 533 La. 2005
    See Hall v. Brookshire Bros., Ltd. 02-2404, p. 19 (La.6/27/03), .
  • Hanks v. Seale 904 So. 2d 662 La. 2005
    See Hall v. Brookshire Bros., Ltd., 02-2404 (La.6/27/03), .
  • Monistere v. Engelhardt 896 So. 2d 1105 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
    40:1299.41 et seq.; Hall v. Brookshire Brothers, Ltd., 02-2404 (La.6/27/03), .
  • Adam Ceasar Sr. v. Dr. Richard J. Barry La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
  • Ceasar v. Barry 894 So. 2d 571 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
    Legal interest “is intended to' compensate ultimately victorious litigants for the value of money to which they are entitled and of which they have been deprived during the pendency of litigation.” Hall v. Brookshire Bros., Ltd., 02-2404, p. 25 (La.6/27/03), .
  • Tina Lynette Watkins, Etc. v. Lake Charles Memorial Hospital La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    6/27/03), (wherein a jury found the plaintiff in need of in excess of $3,000,000.00 dollars); LeRay v. Bartholomew, 03-1370 (La.App.
  • Watkins v. LAKE CHARLES MEMORIAL HOSP. 896 So. 2d 130 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    See Hall v. Brookshire Bros., Ltd., 02-2404 (La.6/27/03), , and other circuits following Hall .
  • Celia Ann Marks v. Ohmeda, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    6/27/03), 11 for the proposition that such an award is “inequitable and even nonsensical.” We find Hall completely inapplicable to the case sub judice.
  • Marks v. Ohmeda, Inc. 871 So. 2d 1148 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    Both in brief and at oral argument, Defendant relied heavily on Hall v. Brookshire Brothers, Ltd., 02-2404, 02-2421 (La.6/27/03), , for the proposition that such an award is "inequitable and even nonsensical."
  • LeRay v. Bartholomew 871 So. 2d 492 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
    *502 In Hall v. Brookshire Bros., LTD, 02-2404, 02-2421 (La.6/27/03), , the jury awarded a medical malpractice plaintiff $35,251.43 for past medical expenses and made a determination that she was in need of future medical care assessed at a cost of $3,862,835.00.
  • Diana Weeks v. Louisiana Patients Compensation Fund La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
    6/27/03), the supreme court interpreted then La.R.S.
  • Weeks v. Louisiana Patient's Compensation Fund 858 So. 2d 851 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
    Recently, in Hall v. Brookshire Brothers, Ltd., 02-2404, 02-2421 (La.6/27/03), , the supreme court interpreted then La.R.S.
  • Yong Turner v. Southwest Louisiana Hospital Assoc La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
    6/27/03), which held that in a trial against the Fund for excess damages, evidence that victim or third party fault caused any portion of the damages “is clearly relevant and admissable.” Id.
  • Turner v. Southwest Louisiana Hosp. Ass'n 856 So. 2d 1237 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
    Indeed, the supreme court very recently handed down the case of Hall v. Brookshire Bros., Ltd., 02-2404, 02-2421 (La.6/27/03), , which held that in a trial against the Fund for excess damages, evidence that victim or third party fault caused any portion of the damages "is clearly relevant and admissable."