Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Pennington v. Justiss-Mears Oil Company, 134 So. 2d 53.

31 citing documents.

Tangela Annette Brown v. Georgia Gulf Lake Charles, LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
Although our Supreme Court has generally rejected the use of mathematical formulae in the determination of the amounts of damages, So.2d 53 [1961]; McFarland v. Illinois Central Railroad Co., 241 La.
Anthony v. Georgia Gulf Lake Charles, LLC. 146 So. 3d 235 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Although our Supreme Court has generally rejected the use of mathematical formulae in the determination of the amounts of damages, , [1961]; McFarland v. Illinois Central Railroad Co., 241 La.
Watters v. Department of Social Services 102 So. 3d 118 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
-10 , (1961), the use of mathematical formulas in calculating damages is prohibited.
Osborne v. Vulcan Foundry, Inc. 675 So. 2d 837 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
1 Cir.1960), judgment amended as to quantum by , (1961).
Buckbee v. Aweco, Inc. 626 So. 2d 1191 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
Although our Supreme Court has generally rejected the use of mathematical formulae in the determination of the amounts of damages, , [1961]; McFarland v. Illinois Central Railroad Co., 241 La.
Logan v. Louisiana Dock Co., Inc. 541 So. 2d 182 La. 1989
408 , (1962); , (1961); D.H.
Streeter v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., Inc. 533 So. 2d 54 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
Although our Supreme Court has generally rejected the use of mathematical formulae in the determination of the amounts of damages, , [1961]; McFarland v. Illinois Central Railroad Co., 241 La.
McWard v. Independent Fire Insurance Co. 482 So. 2d 984 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
(1961); McFarland v. Illinois Central Railroad Co., 241 La.
Aymond v. STATE, THROUGH DEPT. OF HIGHWAYS 333 So. 2d 383 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
15 , , 87 A.L.R.2d 246 ; , ."
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc. 330 So. 2d 649 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
15 , , 87 A.L.R.2d 246 ; , ."
Chivoletto v. Johns-Manville Products Corp. 330 So. 2d 295 La. 1976
875 , (1972); , (1961); Foley v. National Life and Accident Ins.
Piper v. Olinde Hardware & Supply Company, Inc. 288 So. 2d 626 La. 1974
875 , (1972); , (1961); Foley v. National Life and Accident Ins.
Gulotta v. Cutshaw 283 So. 2d 482 La. 1973
875 , (1972); , (1961); Foley v. National Life and Accident Ins.
Francis v. Lake Charles American Press 265 So. 2d 206 La. 1972
Likewise, , (1961), we held that it has been held consistently that we cannot amend a judgment to the prejudice of one at whose instance a writ has been issued when the opposing litigant has failed to make application seeking such an amendment.
LeCompte v. Soileau 258 So. 2d 198 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
McGlory v. Tullos 255 So. 2d 233 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
15 , , 87 A.L.R.2d 246 ; , .’ *236 This Court is therefore of the opinion that the evidence warrants a finding that the plaintiff did suffer loss of earnings as a result of the accident, but only susceptible of an approximation, and this is set at the sum of $2,500.00.
Hebert v. Travelers Insurance Company 245 So. 2d 563 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1971
Although our Supreme Court has generally rejected the use of mathematical formulae in the determination of the amounts of damages, , ; McFarland v. Illinois Central Railroad Co., 241 La.
Jordan v. Travelers Insurance Company 245 So. 2d 151 La. 1971
408 , (1962); , (1961); D. H. Holmes Co., Ltd. v. Morris, 188 La.
Floyd v. City of New Orleans 242 So. 2d 332 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
In the case of Taylor v. Allstate Insurance Co., La.App., (1967), the court stated: “But when we are convinced that an award in the trial court is manifestly er *335 roneous, whether the award be determined by judge or jury, we are compelled to alter said award to its proper level.” Further, , (1961), the appellate court reduced the award where it found abuse of discretion.
Chaney v. Brupbacher 242 So. 2d 627 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1970
Brignac v. Pan American Petroleum Corporation 224 So. 2d 84 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1969
15 , , 87 A.L.R.2d 246 and Pennington v. Justiss-Mears Oil Company, 1961, , , as denouncing the use of a mathematical formula in reaching an award on loss of future earnings and stating that discretion must be used taking into consideration various other factors.
Miller v. Allstate Insurance Company 221 So. 2d 908 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
Wyble v. Minvielle 217 So. 2d 684 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1969
Viator v. Gilbert 216 So. 2d 821 La. 1968
15 , , 87 A.L.R.2d 246 ; , .
Bonilla v. Arrow Food Distributors, Inc. 202 So. 2d 438 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1967
Brown v. S. A. Bourg & Sons, Inc., 239 La.
Penn v. Inferno Manufacturing Corporation 199 So. 2d 210 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
In the case of Pennington v. Justiss-Mears Oil Company [ ], , the Supreme Court of our state indicates that the assessment for loss of future earnings requires the application of solid judicial discretion to the circumstances disclosed by the record.
Jaeger v. Herald 186 So. 2d 365 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1966
416 , (1952); amended on other grounds, , (1961); Harris v. Yazoo & M. V. R., 183 So.
Jones v. Lee 144 So. 2d 405 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
1 , , and awarded $150,000.00 to the plaintiff for loss of maintenance and support because of the accidental death of her husband.
Shuford v. Employers' Liability Assurance Corp. 141 So. 2d 850 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
After giving consideration to all the facts and circumstances disclosed in the record, including those to which we have referred hereinabove, as well as in the companion case, we find the awards are inadequate in view of the awards finally determined in ' , ; McFarland v. Illinois Central Railroad Company, 241 La.
Stephens v. Natchitoches Parish School Board 137 So. 2d 116 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1962
15 , ; Pennington v. Justiss-Mears Oil Company, La., .
Swillie v. General Motors Corporation 133 So. 2d 813 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
In its original opinion, rendered on April 24, 1961, , the Supreme Court again expressed disapproval respecting the use of such a formula for awarding damages for loss of support, and by a four to three decision reduced this item of the award from $150,000 to $40,000.