Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Guillory v. Lee, 16 So. 3d 1104.

202 citing documents.

Bourg v. Cajun Cutters, Inc. 174 So. 3d 56 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
Civ.Code art. 2324.1; Guillory v. Lee, 09-0075 (La.6/26/09), .
McKamey v. Carona 169 So. 3d 449 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
Guillory v. Lee, 09-0075 (La.6/26/09), .
Gene Bordelon, Jr. v. Cutting Edge La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
Nolan C. Barras, Jr., Et Ux. v. Progressive Security Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
Barras v. Progressive Security Insurance Co. 157 So. 3d 1185 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
Guillory v. Lee, 09-75 (La.6/26/09), .
Chermaine P. Dibartolo, Et Ux. v. Stage One - the Hair School, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
Guillory v. Lee, 09- 0075, p. 14 (La.6/26/09) Wainwright v. Fontenot, 00-0492, p. 6 (La.10/17/00)
State ex rel. S.T. 158 So. 3d 944 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
Guillory v. Lee, 09-0075, p. 38 (La.6/26/09), .
Kelley v. General Insurance Co. of America 168 So. 3d 528 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
art. 2324.1; Guillory v. Lee, 2009-0075 (La.6/26/09), .
Hobgood v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 156 So. 3d 1244 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
In Guillory v. Lee, 09-0075, p. 14 (La.6/26/09), , the Court reiterated the long-held tenet that a jury has “great discretion” in assessing damages and that a jury’s assessment of damages is “a determination of fact” which is “entitled to great deference on review.” Accordingly, when reviewing general damage awards, our role is to review the trier of fact’s ex
Young v. Marsh 153 So. 3d 1245 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
Guillory v. Lee, 09-0075 (La.06/26/09), ; McGee v. AC & S, Inc., 05-1036 (La.07/10/06), ; Barnes v. Riverwood Apartments Partnership, 43,-798 (La.App.2d Cir.02/04/09), .
Washington v. Landry's Seafood House New Orleans, Inc. 154 So. 3d 677 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
4 Cir. 8/17/11), (citing Guillory v. Lee, 09-0075, p. 38 (La.6/26/09), ).
Bass v. State 167 So. 3d 711 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
See Guillory v. Lee, 2009-0075 (La.6/26/09), .
Madrid v. AEP River Operations LLC 151 So. 3d 897 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Guillory v. Lee, 09-0075, p. 15 (La.6/26/09), .
Gaspard v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co. 155 So. 3d 24 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Guillory v. Lee, 09-0075 (La.6/26/09), .
Odom v. Fair 147 So. 3d 1215 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
art. 2324.1; Howard v. Union Carbide Corp., 2009_£7508 (La.10/19/10), ; Guillory v. Lee, 2009-0075 (La.6/26/09), .
Mathews v. Emerson 141 So. 3d 346 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
Patrick Hospital, 10-2775 (La.07/01/11), ; Guillory v. Lee, 09-0075 (La.06/26/09), .
Medical Review Panel Proceedings for the Claim of Serpas v. Tulane University Hospital & Clinic 161 So. 3d 726 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Citing Guillory v. Lee, 09-75, p. 38 (La.6/26/09), , Mr. Ser-pas points out that the test to determine whether a jury’s verdict should be set aside is whether it is supportable by a fair interpretation of the evidence.
Khammash v. Clark 145 So. 3d 246 La. 2014
Guillory v. Lee, 09-0075, p. 14 (La.6/26/09) ; Wainwright v. Fontenot, 00-0492, p. 6 (La.10/17/00), .
Carter v. Briggs 136 So. 3d 906 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
Guillory v. Lee, 2009-0075 (La.6/26/09), ; Wainwright v. Fontenot, 2000-0492 (La.10/17/00), .
Commercial Flooring & Mini Blinds, Inc. v. Edenfield 138 So. 3d 30 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Guillory v. Lee, 2009-0075 (La.6/26/09), .
Ricky Fontenot v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
Thurman v. Leech 129 So. 3d 712 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
Guillory v. Lee, 09-0075 (La.6/26/09), , citing Wainwright v. Fontenot, supra.
Schilling v. Bernhard Bros. Mechanical Contractors, LLC 186 So. 3d 658 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
Guillory v. Lee, 09-0075 (La.6/26/09), .
Grinnell v. St. Francis Medical Center, Inc. 156 So. 3d 117 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
Guillory v. Lee, 09-0075 (La.6/26/09)
Travis v. Spitale's Bar, Inc. 122 So. 3d 1118 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
Guillory v. Lee, 090075, p. 14 (La.6/26/09), .
Peironnet v. Matador Resources Co. 144 So. 3d 791 La. 2013
Guillory v. Lee, 09-0075, p. 14 (La.6/26/09) ; Wainwright v. Fonte-not, 00-0492, p. 6 (La.10/17/00), .
Grill Holdings, L.L.C. v. Camellia Grill Holdings, Inc. 120 So. 3d 294 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
Guillory v. Lee, 2009-0075, p. 38 (La.6/26/09), .
Jerrl L. Thompson v. Haralampos Rizos La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
6/26/09), (citing Youn v. Mar.
Doe v. Louisiana Board of Ethics 112 So. 3d 339 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
See, for example, Guillory v. Lee, 09-0075, p. 37 (La.6/26/09), , which discussed the principle in the context of civil penalties imposed on insurers which were found to have engaged in bad faith settlement practices.
Byrnside v. Hutto 110 So. 3d 603 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
Guillory v. Lee, 2009-0075 (La.6/26/09), .
Brednich v. Bourbon Nite-Life, LLC 108 So. 3d 235 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
art. 1972; see also Guillory v. Lee, 090075, p. 38 (La.6/26/09), ; McGhee v. Wallace Drennan, Inc., 04-0950, p. 11 (La.App.
McKinney v. Cruz 107 So. 3d 114 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
Guillory v. Lee, 09-0075 (La.06/26/09), .
Nina Skinner v. State of Louisiana, Dotd La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
6/26/09), - 17, the Louisiana Supreme Court noted (alterations in original): It is well-settled that a judge or jury is given great discretion in its assessment of quantum, both general and special damages.
Tommie M. Granger, M.D. v. Christus Health Central Louisiana D/B/A Christus St. Francis Cabrini Hospital La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
Granger v. Christus Health Central Louisiana 97 So. 3d 604 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
In reviewing this argument, we start with the admonition from the supreme court that “[i]t is well-settled that a judge or jury is given great discretion in its assessment of quantum, both general and special damages.” Guillory v. Lee, 09-75, p. 14 (La.6/26/09), .
Queen Alexander, Et Ux. v. Zachary Laborde La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
Alexander v. Laborde 97 So. 3d 1081 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Guillory v. Lee, 09-75 (La.6/26/09), .
Shirley Langley, Et Ux. v. American Legion Hospital La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
Duncan v. Bartholomew 88 So. 3d 698 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
General damages are those which “may not be fixed with pecuniary exactitude.” Guillory v. Lee, 09-0075, p. 14 (La.6/26/09), .
Sonja Dauzat Deligans, Et Ux. v. Ace American Insurance Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
Mother of Eden, LLC v. Chris Thomas La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
Mother of Eden, LLC v. Thomas 86 So. 3d 760 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Guillory v. Lee, 09-75 (La.6/26/09), .
Deligans v. Ace American Insurance 86 So. 3d 109 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Guillory v. Lee, 09-75, p. 14 (La.6/26/09), .
Oracle 1031 Exchange, LLC v. Leonard Bourque La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
Oracle 1031 Exchange, LLC v. Bourque 85 So. 3d 736 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Guillory v. Lee, 09-75 (La.6/26/09), .
Gulf Coast Chemical, Inc. v. Ecosphere Technologies, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
Guillory v. Lee, 09-0075, p. 14 (La.6/29/09), Wainwright v. Fontenot, 00-0492, p. 6 (La.10/17/00)
Constance Cormier v. Republic Insurance Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
Eunice M. Guidry v. Allstate Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
6/26/09), -17, set forth the standard for appellate review of damage awards: It is well-settled that a judge or jury is given great discretion in its assessment of quantum, both general and special damages.
Steven P. Guillory, Et Ux. v. Christopher P. Saucier La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
6/26/09), the supreme court described this discretion as “vast.” Only after a determination that the trier of fact has abused this vast discretion does an appellate court disturb a trier of fact’s determination and reference prior awards.
Christina Hoyt Hutto v. McNeil-ppc, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011