Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Howard v. Union Carbide Corp., 50 So. 3d 1251.

40 citing documents.

Marilyn H. McBride, Davy A. Dowdy, and Joey E. Miller v. Old Republic Insurance Company, John K. Woodard, … La. 2025
10/19/10), -56 As this Court recently reiterated in Pete v. Boland Marine & Mfg.
Barber Brothers Contracting Company, LLC v. Capitol City Produce Company, LLC; Frank Cushenberry; And Xyz Insurance Company C/W … La. 2024
Jonathan Akers and Cyntiana Akers v. Joseph Douglas, Daryl Malone, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company and Prosight … La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2024
Gordon Tatman v. Marvin Williams, Valley Proteins, inc.and Travelers Indemnity Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2023
Denisa Joshua v. Community Care Center of Heritage House, LLC La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2023
10/ 19/ 10), ( per curiam).
Cd, Individually And On Behalf Of The Minor, Sd v. Sc, Individually And As The Parent And Guardian … La. 2023
10/19/10), - 5 We hold juries in high regard and accord them great deference in their decisions.
Lashondra Jones v. Market Basket Stores, Inc. (Parish of Calcasieu) Appellate Court Decision Vacated; District Court Judgment Reinstated; … La. 2023
Jayson Grammar, Jr. Versus Imperial Fire and Casualty Insurance Company La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2022
Corey Cobena and Dajonic Smith Versus Ace American Insurance Company Bfi Waste Services, LLC and Vinicio Ardon La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2022
Distinguished Joshua L. Adams v. Union Pacific Railroad Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
10/19/10), ].” Specifically, the Special Master notes, “I find that the ‘special circumstances’ of a train derailment and resulting chemical spill and uncertain threat of [a] chemical spill and evacuation which occurred in close proximity to plaintiff’s house are more serious and distressful circumstances than the circumstanc
Distinguished Joshua L. Adams v. Union Pacific Railroad Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
10/19/10), ] that cannot be ignored.
Distinguished Joshua L. Adams v. Union Pacific Railroad Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
10/19/10), ] that cannot be ignored.
Distinguished Joshua L. Adams v. Union Pacific Railroad Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
10/19/10), ] that cannot be ignored.
Distinguished Adams v. Union Pac. R.R. Co. 273 So. 3d 419 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
Aaron v. Exxon Mobil Corp. 266 So. 3d 282 La. 2019
Aaron v. Exxon Mobil Corp. 271 So. 3d 205 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
Aaron v. McGowan Working Partners 223 So. 3d 714 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
10/19/10), , the amount of general damages awarded to each plaintiff was excessive.
Kodie J. Courville, Et Ux. v. Allstate Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
La.Civ.Code art. 2324.1; Howard v. Union Carbide Corp., 09-2750 (La.10/19/10)
Courville v. Allstate Insurance Co. 215 So. 3d 310 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
La.Civ.Code art. 2324.1; Howard v. Union Carbide Corp., 09-2750 (La.10/19/10), .
Aaron v. Exxon Mobil Corp. 201 So. 3d 241 La. 2016
Patricia Parker v. Town of Woodworth La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
La.Civ.Code art. 2324.1; Howard v. Union Carbide Corp., 09–2750 (La.10/19/10)
Parker v. Town of Woodworth 160 So. 3d 1113 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
La.Civ.Code art. 2324.1; Howard v. Union Carbide Corp., 09-2750 (La.10/19/10), .
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), .
Tangela Annette Brown v. Georgia Gulf Lake Charles, LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
10/19/10), and Arabie, 2 2 We note the supreme court’s opinion in Arabie did not address the individual damage awards discussed by this court in our opinion in Arabie.
Anthony v. Georgia Gulf Lake Charles, LLC. 146 So. 3d 235 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
It cites two Louisiana Supreme Court cases, Howard v. Union Carbide Corp., 09-2750 (La.10/19/10), , and Arabie, .
Jurnell Smith v. Bobby Guidroz La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
Smith v. Guidroz 125 So. 3d 1268 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
La.Civ.Code art. 2824.1; Howard v. Union Carbide Corp., 09-2750 (La.10/19/10), .
Travis v. Spitale's Bar, Inc. 122 So. 3d 1118 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
Howard v. Union Carbide Corp., 09-2750, pp. 5-6, (citing Coco v. Winston Indus.
Normand v. Jones 115 So. 3d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
5 Cir. 10/27/09) , ; writ granted, 09-2750 (La.4/23/10), , and aff'd as amended, 09-2750 (La.10/19/10), , cert.
Victor Rachal v. Justin P. Brouillette La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
Babin v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 113 So. 3d 251 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
art. 2324.1; Howard v. Union Carbide Carp., 2009-2750 (La.10/19/10), .
Watters v. Department of Social Services 109 So. 3d 401 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
Civ.Code art. 2324.1; Howard v. Union Carbide Corp., 09-2750 (La.10/19/10), .
Guidry v. Dow Chemical Co. 105 So. 3d 900 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Howard v. Union Carbide Corp., 2009-2750 (La.10/19/10), .
Jones v. Capitol Enterprises, Inc. 89 So. 3d 474 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
First, the award of damages is an individual determination that must be made “based upon testimony as to an individual’s actual damages, not on expert testimony that it was ‘reasonable’ to assume someone closer to the source [ (release site) ] would suffer more damage than someone farther away.” Howard v. Union Carbide Corp., 09-2750 at p. 1 (La.10/19/10), -58 (Victory, J., concurring).
Watters v. Department of Social Services 102 So. 3d 118 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
The district court found that specific causation existed without testimony from a medical expert was acceptable in this matter based on: 1) its reliance on Howard v. Union Carbide Corp., 09-2750 (La.10/19/10), , for the proposition that medical testimony was not necessary; 2) its finding that “there can be no doubt that if the plaintiffs were to call Dr. Rai to testify per each member, that her testimony regarding the Appel-lees symptoms would be the same as that of the class representative;” an
Constance Cormier v. Republic Insurance Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
Cormier v. Republic Insurance Co. 118 So. 3d 16 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Louisiana Civil Code Article 2324.1 provides that: “In the assessment of damages in cases of offenses, quasi offenses, and quasi contracts, much discretion must be left to the judge or jury.” The supreme court has described this discretion as “vast” and “such that an appellate court should rarely disturb an award.” Howard v. Union Carbide Corp., 09-2750, p. 5 (La.10/19/10), -56 ().
Steven P. Guillory, Et Ux. v. Christopher P. Saucier La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
10/19/10), (citing Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc., ).
Guillory v. Saucier 79 So. 3d 1188 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
Howard v. Union Carbide Corp., 09-2750 (La.10/19/10), (citing Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc., ).
Matlock v. City of Shreveport 58 So. 3d 1131 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
Quantum In Howard v. Union Carbide Corp., 2009-2750 (La.10/19/10), , the court cited the well-settled principle that vast discretion is accorded to the trier of fact in fixing general damage awards.