DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Richmond v. New Amsterdam Casualty Company, 85 So. 2d 717.

14 citing documents.

  • Hanford v. Jan C. Uiterwyk Company 214 So. 2d 236 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1968
    Morris v. Supreme Bedding & Furniture Manufacturing Co., La.App., ; Richmond v. New Amsterdam Casualty Company, La.App., ; Roy v. Guillot, La.
  • Meche v. Maryland Casualty Company 204 So. 2d 719 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1968
  • Guidry v. Jahncke Service, Inc. 158 So. 2d 65 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
    Rider v. R. P. Farnsworth Company, La.App., , Carter v. Consolidated Underwriters, La.App., , and Richmond v. New Amsterdam Casualty Company, La.App., .” Edwards v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, .
  • White v. Insurance Company of North America 150 So. 2d 908 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1963
    Richmond v. New Amsterdam Casualty Company, La.App., .
  • Harris v. Argonaut Insurance Company 142 So. 2d 501 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1962
    Orleans, 1956, ; and (2) the opinion of a physician specialized in a particular field of medicine to which plaintiff's injuries are related is entitled to greater weight than the opinion of a physician engaged in general practice and not so specialized.
  • Jones v. Sears 140 So. 2d 798 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
    Williams v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co., supra.
  • Braswell v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York 135 So. 2d 532 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
    Walker v. Monroe, et al, La.App., (2d Cir.1953); Roy v. Guillot, La.App., (2d Cir.1955); Richmond v. New Amsterdam Casualty Company, La.App., (1956); Anderson v. Peek, La.App., (2d Cir.1958); Cotton v. Hartlord Accident & Indemnity Company, La.App., (2d Cir.1959); and Ruffin v. Travelers Insurance Company, La.App., (1st Cir.1960).
  • Morris v. Supreme Bedding & Furniture Mfg. Co. 126 So. 2d 412 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1960
    App. Orleans 1956, ; Roy v. Guillot, La.App.
  • Williams v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co. 121 So. 2d 760 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
    In weighing and evaluating the testimony of the medical experts, certain rules have been established by the jurisprudence, among which are (1) that the opinion of the treating physician is entitled to greater weight than the opinion of a doctor examining the claimant at a later date (Richmond v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co., La.App., ); and (2) the opinion of a physician specialized in a particular field of medicine, to which plaintiff’s injuries are related, is entitled to greater weight than the
  • Ruffin v. Travelers Insurance Co. 120 So. 2d 532 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
    Richmond v. New Amsterdam Casualty Company, La.App.1956, .
  • Crenshaw v. Firemen's Fund Indemnity Co. 119 So. 2d 663 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
    Anderson v. Peek, La.App., ; Richmond v. New Amsterdam Casualty Company, La.App., ; Roy v. Guillot, La.App., ; Walker v. Monroe, La.App., .
  • Cotton v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company 116 So. 2d 736 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1959
    App., ; Anderson v. Peek, supra.
  • Edwards v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 108 So. 2d 126 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
    Rider v. R. P. Farnsworth Company, La.App., , Carter v. Consolidated Underwriters, La.App., , and Richmond v. New Amsterdam Casualty Company, La.App., .
  • Anderson v. Peek 102 So. 2d 776 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1958
    1953, ; Roy v. Guillot, La.App.1955, , certiorari denied 1956, Richmond v. New Amsterdam Casualty Company, La.App.1956, .