DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Miller v. Lammico, 973 So. 2d 693.

105 citing documents.

  • Bourg v. Cajun Cutters, Inc. 174 So. 3d 56 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    Miller v. LAMMICO, 07-1352 (La.1/16/08), .
  • Edmond v. Cherokee Insurance Co. 170 So. 3d 1029 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    Miller v. LAMMICO, 07-1352 (La.1/16/08), .
  • Williams v. Mathieu 155 So. 3d 54 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    Miller v. LAMMICO, 07-1352, p. 28 (La.1/16/08), ( Anderson v. New Orleans Pub.
  • Gaspard v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co. 155 So. 3d 24 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    Miller v. LAMMICO, 07-1352 (La.1/16/08), .
  • Tangela Annette Brown v. Georgia Gulf Lake Charles, LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
  • Anthony v. Georgia Gulf Lake Charles, LLC. 146 So. 3d 235 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    Miller v. LAMMICO, 07-1352 (La.1/16/08), .
  • Aymami v. St. Tammany Parish Hospital Service District No. 1 145 So. 3d 439 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    Miller v. LAMMICO, 07-1352 (La.1/16/08), .
  • Oleszkowicz v. Exxon Mobil Corp. 129 So. 3d 1272 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2013
    “It is a familiar rule of statutory construction that the general purpose and ob *1290 ject of the law must be kept in mind and the statute given such fair and reasonable interpretation as will effect the purpose and object for which it was enacted.” Miller v. LAMMICO, 07-1852 (La.1/16/08); .
  • State v. Hamdalla 126 So. 3d 619 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    See, e.g., Miller v. Lammico, 07-1352, p. 28-29 (La.1/16/08), .
  • Smith v. Escalon 117 So. 3d 576 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
    Miller v. Lammico, 2007-1352 (La.1/16/08), ; Caskey, supra.
  • Betty Issac v. Remington College La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    1/16/08), the supreme court addressed the appellate court’s review of general damage awards, stating: General damages are those which are inherently speculative in nature and cannot be fixed with mathematical certainty.
  • Isaac v. Remington College 114 So. 3d 636 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    In Miller v. LAMMICO, 07-1352, pp. 27-28 (La.1/16/08), , the supreme court addressed the appellate court’s review of general damage awards, stating: General damages are those which are inherently speculative in nature and cannot be fixed with mathematical certainty.
  • Carter ex rel. Blair v. Brothers Lapalco, L.L.C. 118 So. 3d 1194 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    Miller v. LAMMICO, 07-1352 (La.1/16/08), .
  • Normand v. Jones 115 So. 3d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    Miller v. LAMMICO, 07-1352 (La.1/16/08), .
  • Watters v. Department of Social Services 109 So. 3d 401 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    Miller v. LAMMICO, 07-1352, p. 28 (La.1/16/08), .
  • Donald Collins v. National Healthcare of Leesville, Inc. D/B/A Byrd Regional Hospital La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
  • Collins v. National Healthcare of Leesville, Inc. 101 So. 3d 1110 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    “General damages are those which are inherently speculative in nature and cannot be fixed with mathematical certainty.” Miller v. LAMMICO, 07-1352, p. 27 (La.1/16/08), .
  • Nina Skinner v. State of Louisiana, Dotd La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
    See also Miller v. LAMMICO, 07–1352, p. 28 (La.1/16/08), (stating that an appellate court may disturb a damages award only after an articulated analysis of the facts discloses an abuse of discretion and citing Theriot v. Allstate Ins.
  • Watters v. Department of Social Services 102 So. 3d 118 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    See Miller v. Lammico, 07-1352, p. 28 (La.1/16/08), .
  • Caskey v. Merrick Construction Co. 86 So. 3d 186 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
    Miller v. Lammico, 07-1352 (La.01/16/08), ; Britt, supra.
  • Sam Staub Enterprises, Inc. v. Chapital 88 So. 3d 690 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    Miller v. Lammico, 07-1352, p. 28 (La.1/16/08), .
  • Sonja Dauzat Deligans, Et Ux. v. Ace American Insurance Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
    See also Miller v. LAMMICO, 07-1352, p. 28 (La.1/16/08), (stating that an appellate court may disturb a damages award only after an articulated analysis of the facts discloses an abuse of discretion and citing Theriot v. Allstate Ins.
  • Deligans v. Ace American Insurance 86 So. 3d 109 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    See also Miller v. LAMMICO, 07-1352, p. 28 (La.1/16/08), (stating that an appellate court may disturb a damages award only after an articulated analysis of the facts discloses an abuse of discretion and citing Theriot v. Allstate Ins.
  • Bickham v. Lammico 90 So. 3d 467 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    In accordance with the Louisiana Supreme Court’s interpretation of Miller v. LAMMICO, 07-1352 (La.1/16/08), , and comparative fault provisions, qualified health care providers are responsible for their share of apportioned fault, up to the statutory limit provided by La.
  • Eunice M. Guidry v. Allstate Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    See also Miller v. LAMMICO, 07-1352, p. 28 (La.1/16/08), (stating that an appellate court may disturb a damages award only after an articulated analysis of the facts discloses an abuse of discretion and citing Theriot v. Allstate Ins.
  • Guidry v. Allstate Insurance Co. 83 So. 3d 91 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    See also Miller v. LAMMICO, 07-1352, p. 28 (La.1/16/08), (stating that an appellate court may disturb a damages award only after an articulated analysis of the facts discloses an abuse of discretion and citing Theriot v. Allstate Ins.
  • George McCarthy v. Entergy Gulf States, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
  • McCarthy v. Entergy Gulf States, Inc. 82 So. 3d 336 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    “General damages are those which are inherently speculative in nature and cannot be fixed with mathematical certainty.” Miller v. LAMMICO, 07-1352, p. 27 (La.1/16/08), .
  • Johnson v. Morehouse General Hospital 63 So. 3d 87 La. 2011
    Miller v. LAMMICO, 07-1352 (La.1/16/08), (“It is well-settled that the comparative fault regime applies to liability based on medical malpractice.”) In light of our reversal of the jury’s finding that Morehouse’s fault in not timely transmitting the results of the L/S ratio and PG tests was a cause of Garrett’s injuries, the jury’s apportionment of 80%
  • Stratmann v. Cardiovascular Specialists, Inc. 65 So. 3d 244 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    Civ.Code art. 2323; Miller v. LAMMICO, 2007-1352, p. 9 (La.1/16/08), .
  • August F. Tjon v. Dr. Steve Fitzgerald La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    See also Miller v. LAMMICO, 07-1352, p. 28 (La.1/16/08), (stating that an appellate court may disturb a damages award only after an articulated analysis of the facts discloses an abuse of discretion and citing Theriot v. Allstate Ins.
  • In Re Medical Review Panel Claim of Dunjee 57 So. 3d 541 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    The only case which Ms. Dunjee's representative asked us to compare is Miller v. Lammico, 07-1352 (La.1/16/08), , for her proposal that the general damages award should be increased to $300,000.
  • Henry Adam Baltazar, Etc. v. Dennis R. Wolinski La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
  • Baltazar v. Wolinski 53 So. 3d 591 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    Our supreme court has stated that “a plaintiffs stipulation has the effect of a judicial admission or confession and binds all parties and the court.” Miller v. Lammico, 07-1352, pp. 23-24 (La.1/16/08), .
  • Margie McGlothlin, Et Vir v. Christus St. Patrick Hospital La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
  • McGlothlin v. Christus St. Patrick Hospital 50 So. 3d 967 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    | .^General Damages “General damages are those which are inherently speculative in nature and cannot be fixed with mathematical certainty.” Miller v. Lammico, 07-1352, p. 27 (La.1/16/08), .
  • Douglas v. Children's Hospital 69 So. 3d 434 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    Relying on the Louisiana Supreme Court’s decision in Miller v. LAMMICO, 07-1352 (La.1/16/08), , the trial court cast the State for the entire statutory limit of $500,000, and the medical expenses found by the jury and applied the percentages of fault found by the jury to the total amount of damages found by the jury, prior to imposition of the statutory cap.
  • Barbara Raymond v. Government Employees Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
    See also Miller v. LAMMICO, 07-1352, p. 28 (La.1/16/08), (stating that an appellate court may disturb a damages award only after an articulated analysis of the facts discloses an abuse of discretion and citing Theriot v. Allstate Ins.
  • Raymond v. Government Employees Insurance 40 So. 3d 1179 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    See also Miller v. Lammico, 07-1352, p. 28 (La.1/16/08), (stating that an appellate court may disturb a damages award only after an articulated analysis of the facts discloses an abuse of discretion and citing Theriot v. Allstate Ins.
  • Samuel E. Russell v. Shetler Mutual Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
    1/16/08), and Bullock v. Graham, 96-711 (La.
  • 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), .
  • Scott Ferguson v. Loewer Powersports & Equipment La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
    See also Miller v. LAMMICO, 07-1352, p. 28 (La.1/16/08), (stating that an appellate court may disturb a damages award only after an articulated analysis of the facts discloses an abuse of discretion and citing Theriot v. Allstate Ins.
  • Ferguson v. LOEWER POWERSPORTS & EQUIPMENT 33 So. 3d 446 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    See also Miller v. LAMMICO, 07-1352, p. 28 (La.1/16/08), (stating that an appellate court may disturb a damages award only after an articulated analysis of the facts discloses an abuse of discretion and citing Theriot v. Allstate Ins.
  • PROPERTY INS. ASS'N OF LOUISIANA v. Theriot 31 So. 3d 1012 La. 2010
    Miller v. LAMMICO, XXXX-XXXX, p. 15 (La.1/16/08), -4 , citing Hall v. Brookshire Brothers, Ltd., 2002-2404, p. 19 (La.6/27/2003), .
  • Property Insurance Ass'n of Louisiana v. Theriot 31 So. 3d 1012 La. 2010
    Miller v. LAMMICO, 2007-1352, p. 15 (La.1/16/08), -4 , citing Hall v. Brookshire Brothers, Ltd., 2002-2404, p. 19 (La.6/27/2003), .
  • Savage v. State Farm Mutual Insurance 33 So. 3d 919 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    See also Miller v. Lammico, 07-1352, p. 28 (La.1/16/08), (stating that an appellate court may disturb a damages award only after an articulated analysis of the facts discloses an abuse of discretion and citing Theriot v. Allstate Ins.
  • Margie F. Martin v. Safeway Insurance co.of Louisiana La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
    3/6/09), we reviewed the law applicable to claims of inadequate/excessive damages: In Miller v. LAMMICO, 07-1352, p. 28 (La.1/16/08), the supreme court noted: An appellate court reviews a trial court’s general damage award using the abuse of discretion standard.
  • Guillory v. Lee 16 So. 3d 1104 La. 2009
    See also Miller v. LAMMICO, 07-1352, p. 28 (La.1/16/08), (stating that an appellate court may disturb a damages award only after an articulated analysis of the facts discloses an abuse of discretion and citing Theriot v. Allstate Ins.
  • Todd v. Delta Queen Steamboat Co. 15 So. 3d 107 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2009
    Miller v. LAMMICO, 07-1352, p. 28 (La.1/16/08), .
  • Janell Ernst v. Dr. Flynn A. Taylor La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009