DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite McFarland v. Illinois Central Railroad Co., 127 So. 2d 183.

68 citing documents.

  • Prejeant v. Gray Insurance Co. 176 So. 3d 704 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    5 Cir. 4/29/08) , ( , (1961)).
  • 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
  • D'AMBROSIA v. Lang 985 So. 2d 800 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
  • Buckbee v. Aweco, Inc. 626 So. 2d 1191 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
    1 , [1961]; , [1961], the unit-of-time argument was approved by our brothers of the First Circuit in Little v. Hughes, La.App., [1961]...."
  • Moore v. Chrysler Corp. 596 So. 2d 225 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
    87 A.L.R.2d 246 (1961); (La.App.
  • Streeter v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., Inc. 533 So. 2d 54 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
    1 , [1961]; , [1961], the unit-of-time argument was approved by our brothers of the First Circuit in Little v. Hughes, La.App., [1961] ..."
  • Fitzgerald v. Gulf Intern. Cinema Corp. 489 So. 2d 306 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
  • McWard v. Independent Fire Insurance Co. 482 So. 2d 984 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
  • Bishop v. Shelter Ins. Co. 461 So. 2d 1170 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
  • Lincecum v. Missouri Pacific RR Co. 452 So. 2d 1182 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    1st Cir.1960), affirmed , (La.
  • Whittington v. Sowela Technical Institute 438 So. 2d 236 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
    (1961) controls this issue.
  • Philippe v. Browning Arms Co. 395 So. 2d 310 La. 1981
  • Sibley v. Menard 398 So. 2d 590 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
  • Stewart v. Schmieder 376 So. 2d 1046 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
  • Davis v. Owen 368 So. 2d 1052 La. 1979
  • Lofton v. Cade 359 So. 2d 1074 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1978
    (1961), the Supreme Court stated that ratio decidendi of this doctrine is that the loss suffered by the surviving spouse is determinable by conditions which exist at the date of the wrongful death, as this is the time when a right and a cause of action for the damages arises; and that the tort feasor w
  • Blancher v. Samuels 354 So. 2d 213 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
  • Falcon v. Bigelow-Liptak Corp. 356 So. 2d 507 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
  • Higgins v. Johnson 349 So. 2d 918 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    (1961); Jordan v. Travelers Insurance Company, 257 La.
  • Johnson v. International Ins. Co. 347 So. 2d 1279 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
  • Carollo v. Wilson 345 So. 2d 601 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    We recognize that nice mathematics is not required of a trier of fact in evaluating loss of future earnings, and that our supreme court has cautioned that future losses cannot be calculated with mathematical certainty, McFarland v. Illinois Central R. Co., 1961, , .
  • Blanchard v. Rodrigue 340 So. 2d 1001 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
  • Aymond v. STATE, THROUGH DEPT. OF HIGHWAYS 333 So. 2d 383 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
    473 , ; , , 87 A.L.R.2d 246 ; and Pennington v. Justiss-Mears Oil Company, 242 La.
  • Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc. 330 So. 2d 649 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
    (1961); Viator v. Gilbert, 253 La.
  • Triche v. Commercial Union Insurance Company 329 So. 2d 784 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    (1961), proscribed the ascertaining of loss of future earnings by computation based solely upon work-life expectancy.
  • Morgan v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. 323 So. 2d 855 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1975
  • Gordon v. General Motors Corp. 323 So. 2d 496 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
    Taking all of these figures, , (1961), which rejected the application of a mathematical formula for determining loss of future earnings, we feel that the award of $467,000 in this case was clearly within the wide discretion vested in the trier of fact under LSA-C.C.
  • Guidry v. Canal Insurance Co. 313 So. 2d 860 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
    Plaintiff complains that the Lower Court has used a formula in computing loss of future earnings and to do so is contrary to Louisiana law, , 127 So.
  • Tillman v. Canal Insurance Co. 305 So. 2d 602 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
    It has been established impressively in our jurisprudence ( , (1961) that the fixing of quantum for the loss of support does not lend itself to a mathematical formula.
  • Kansas City Southern Railway Co. v. Government Employees Insurance 303 So. 2d 252 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
    1 Cir. 1960), , amended on other grounds, , , 87 A.L.R.2d 246 .
  • Collins v. Becnel 297 So. 2d 510 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1974
    the Supreme Court in holding that evidence of a surviving spouse's remarriage was inadmissible in her claim for the wrongful death of her husband, said the following: "The reason for such doctrine appears to be that the loss suffered by the surviving spouse is determinable by conditions existing as o
  • Chateau v. Smith 297 So. 2d 268 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1974
    However, , , our Supreme Court in holding that evidence of a plaintiff surviving spouse's remarriage since the date of her husband's wrongful death could not be considered in assessing the amount of recovery for his death, said the following: "The reason for such doctrine appears to be that the loss suffered by t
  • Edwards v. Sims 294 So. 2d 611 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1974
  • York v. Sedotal 281 So. 2d 170 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1973
    In McFarland v. Illinois *176 Central Railroad Company, , (1961), the Supreme Court reversed a court of appeal decision which increased a damage award, and in so doing reinstated a considerably lower jury verdict.
  • Austrum v. City of Baton Rouge 282 So. 2d 434 La. 1973
  • Francis v. Lake Charles American Press 265 So. 2d 206 La. 1972
  • LeBlanc v. Metal Locking of Louisiana, Inc. 258 So. 2d 683 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
    (1961), proscribed the ascertaining of loss of future earnings by computation based solely upon work-life expectancy.
  • Wakefield v. Government Employees Insurance Co. 253 So. 2d 667 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1972
    (1961), cited in support of plaintiffs' argument, rejected consideration of the remarriage of a surviving widow and determined the damages as of the date of the wrongful death of the husband.
  • McGlory v. Tullos 255 So. 2d 233 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
    473 , ; , , 87 A.L.R.2d 246 ; and Pennington v. Justiss-Mears Oil Company, 242 La.
  • Abadie v. Employers Group Insurance Co. 250 So. 2d 84 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
  • Hebert v. Travelers Insurance Company 245 So. 2d 563 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1971
    1 , ; , , the unit-of-time argument was approved by our brothers of the First Circuit in Little v. Hughes, La.App., .
  • Floyd v. City of New Orleans 242 So. 2d 332 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
    Also, , (1961), the Louisiana Supreme Court stated: “The award is always subject to review by an appellate court.” In the Brumfield case, supra, the court reduced an award from $4,000 to $2,000 for injuries consisting primarily of a flex-ion-extension injury of the cervical area together with a low back s
  • Chaney v. Brupbacher 242 So. 2d 627 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1970
    These factors are considered in arriving at quantum for loss of support, although no exact mathematical calculation may be used; , (1961); Pennington v. Justiss-Mears Oil Co., 242 La.
  • Robison v. Garnett 238 So. 2d 58 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
    (1961) the Supreme Court stated that the amount to be allowed for loss of earnings is impossible to determine upon any scientific basis and it is for this reason that any formula used to determine such an award must and should be rejected.
  • Gant v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 234 So. 2d 776 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
    Suffice it to say that the suggestion that such a consideration is proper in assessing damages in a , (1961), wherein the Supreme Court expressly stated that the loss suffered by a surviving spouse is determinable by conditions existing as of the date of the wrongful death and the tort-feasor will not be permitted to use the probability of or even the actual remarriage of the surviving spouse in mitiga
  • Brignac v. Pan American Petroleum Corporation 224 So. 2d 84 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1969
    Appellant cites McFarland v. Illinois Central Railroad Company, 1961, , , 87 A.L.R.2d 246 and Pennington v. Justiss-Mears Oil Company, 1961, 242 La.
  • Viator v. Gilbert 216 So. 2d 821 La. 1968
    473 , ; , , 87 A.L.R.2d 246 ; and Pennington v. Justiss-Mears Oil Company, 242 La.
  • Bonilla v. Arrow Food Distributors, Inc. 202 So. 2d 438 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1967
    473 , ; , , 87 A.L.R.2d 246 ; Penn v. Inferno Manufacturing Corporation, La.App., .
  • Kezerle v. Hardware Mutual Casualty Company 198 So. 2d 119 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1967
    87 A.L.R.2d 246 (1961); affirmed 242 La.