DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Davis v. Witt, 851 So. 2d 1119.

77 citing documents.

  • Forbes v. Cockerham 985 So. 2d 86 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
    See Trunk v. Medical Center of Louisiana at New Orleans, XXXX-XXXX, p. 11 (La.10/19/04), ("Because we have previously concluded [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, 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
  • Randy Fontenot v. Patterson Insurance Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
    7/2/03), and Hebert v. Rapides Parish Police Jury, 06-2001, 06-2164 (La.
  • Fontenot v. PATTERSON INS. 972 So. 2d 401 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
    See Powell v. Reg'l Transit Auth., 96-0715 (La.6/18/97), ; Davis v. Witt, 02-3102, 02-3110 (La.7/2/03), ; and Hebert v. Rapides Parish Police Jury, 06-2001, 06-2164 (La.4/11/07), ___ So.2d.
  • Higginbotham v. Rapides Foundation 968 So. 2d 1226 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
    The supreme court in Davis v. Witt, 02-3102, pp. 10-11 (La.7/2/03), , discussed the method by which a court must determine whether liability exists: The standard negligence analysis we employ in determining whether to impose liability under [La.Civ.Code] art. 2315 is the duty/risk analysis, which consists of the following four-prong inquiry: (1) Was the conduct in question a sub
  • Elizabeth Higginbotham v. Rapides Healthcare System, LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
    7/2/03), discussed the method by which a court must determine whether liability exists: The standard negligence analysis we employ in determining whether to impose liability under [La.Civ.Code] art. 2315 is the duty/risk analysis, which consists of the following four-prong inquiry: (1) W
  • Graves v. Riverwood Intern. Corp. 949 So. 2d 576 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
    Davis v. Witt, 02-3102 (La.07/02/03), ; Davis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 00-0445 (La.11/28/00), ; (La.App.
  • Hebert v. Rapides Parish Police Jury 934 So. 2d 912 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    See Davis v. Witt, 02-3102, 02-3110 (La.7/2/03), .
  • Mel McDaniel v. Carencro Lions Club La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
  • John Hebert, Et Ux. v. Rapides Parish Police Jury La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
  • McDaniel v. Carencro Lions Club 934 So. 2d 945 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    3 Cir.2002), , reversed on other grounds, 02-3102 (La.7/2/03), .
  • Hunter v. City of Shreveport 935 So. 2d 300 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
    He cites Davis v. Witt, 02-3102 (La.7/2/03), , in which the court stated that, when a law enforcement officer becomes aware of a dangerous traffic situation, he has the affirmative duty to see that motorists are not subjected to unreasonable risks of harm.
  • Theriot v. Bergeron 939 So. 2d 379 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
    Davis v. Witt, XXXX-XXXX (La.7/2/03), -1129 .
  • Zimko v. American Cyanamid 905 So. 2d 465 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
    Davis v. Witt, XXXX-XXXX (La.7/02/03), .
  • Lam Ex Rel. Lam v. State Farm Auto. Ins. 901 So. 2d 559 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
    Pepper v. Triplet, XXXX-XXXX (La.1/21/04), citing, Davis v. Witt, XXXX-XXXX (La.7/2/03), .
  • Daniel K. Murchison v. Lyndon Property Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
  • Murchison v. Lyndon Property Ins. Co. 896 So. 2d 214 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    Davis v. Witt, 02-3102, p. 23 (La.07/02/03), .
  • George Setliff v. Rapides Parish School Board La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    Davis v. Witt, 02-3102, 02-3110 (La.7/2/03)
  • Setliff v. Rapides Parish School Bd. 888 So. 2d 1156 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    Davis v. Witt, 02-3102, 02-3110 (La.7/2/03), .
  • Saragusa v. Auto Craft, Inc. 886 So. 2d 548 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
    See Davis v. Witt, 2002-31-2 (La.7/2/03), .
  • Ramey v. DeCaire 869 So. 2d 114 La. 2004
    Davis v. Witt, 02-3102, p. 13 (La.7/2/03), .
  • Vermilion Parish Police Jury v. Tim Albert La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
  • Vermilion Parish Police Jury v. Albert 867 So. 2d 67 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
    Davis v. Witt, 02-3102, 02-3110, p. 10 (La.7/2/03), .
  • Simmons v. CTL DISTRIBUTION 868 So. 2d 918 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
    10-11 (La.7/2/03), -1127 .
  • Oubre v. Eslaih 869 So. 2d 71 La. 2004
    Davis v. Witt, 02-3102 (La.7/2/03), ; Syrie v. Schilhab, 96-1027 (La.5/20/97), ; Monceaux v. Jennings Rice Drier, Inc., (La.App.
  • Pepper v. Triplet 864 So. 2d 181 La. 2004
    Davis v. Witt, 02-3102, 02-3110 (La.7/2/03), .
  • Hays v. State 856 So. 2d 64 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
    *74 In Davis v. Witt, XXXX-XXXX (La.7/2/03), , the Louisiana Supreme court stated that JNOV was not a procedural tool to reconcile conflicting decisions where reasonable minds could differ with respect to the evidence.
  • Boylston v. Tidwell 852 So. 2d 1256 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
    4 In the recent case of Davis v. Witt, 02-3102 (La.7/2/03), , the supreme court analyzed the effect of an improper jury charge on a motion for new trial: Turning now to the case before us, we find the trial judge’s reliance on improper jury instructions, the first articulation in support of his conditional grant of a new trial, was erroneous as a matter of law.