Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Guillory v. New Amsterdam Casualty Company, 152 So. 2d 1.

67 citing documents.

Burnes v. Wizard Enterprises, Inc. 543 So. 2d 616 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
Gonzales v. Babco Farm, Inc. 535 So. 2d 822 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
Kresge Company, Aleman v. Lionel F. Favret Company, Inc., Guillory v. *824 New Amsterdam Casualty Company, , (1963); Nash v. Ewing Timber, Inc., (La.App.
Gonzales v. Barco Farm, Inc. 535 So. 2d 822 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
Kresge Company, Aleman v. Lionel F. Favret Company, Inc., Guillory v. *824 New Amsterdam Casualty Company, , (1963); Nash v. Ewing Timber, Inc., (La.App.
Guillory v. State 486 So. 2d 1195 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
1st Cir.1972); , (1963), which hold that a plaintiff in a workmen’s compensation case must bear the same burden of proof as is required in other civil cases, that is, the plaintiff must establish his claim to a legal certainty, meaning, by a reasonable preponderance of evidence.
Mott v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 486 So. 2d 112 La. 1986
4th Cir.1962), affm'd 244 La.225, (1963); Lott v. Southern Farm Bureau Cas.
Batiste v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. 478 So. 2d 1276 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Welborn v. Ashy Enterprises, Inc. 478 So. 2d 626 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
Kramer v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. 459 So. 2d 642 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1984
Jones v. Argonaut Insurance Co. 449 So. 2d 24 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
Washington v. Ameron Automotive Centers 432 So. 2d 1193 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
So.2d 1 (1963).” With this in mind, we cannot say that the burden of proof applied by the trial judge to plaintiff in this case was “too strict.” The determination of disability is a question of fact which will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is shown to be clearly wrong.
Ellis v. Rapides Parish School Bd. 419 So. 2d 990 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
Guillory v. Insurance Co. of North America 401 So. 2d 612 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
Rayfield ex rel. Rayfield v. City of New Orleans 398 So. 2d 1243 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
(1963) our Supreme Court, in discussing what is meant by preponderance of the evidence in compensation cases, states that “speculation, conjecture, near possibility, and even unsupported probabilities, are not sufficient * * (La.App
Gurry v. Allied Metals, Inc. 379 So. 2d 871 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
Planning Systems Corp. v. Murrell 374 So. 2d 719 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1979
Mitchell Bros. v. Dinvaut 374 So. 2d 199 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1979
NOTES [1] , (1963); (La.App.
Pounds v. Ecoff Trucking, Inc. 365 So. 2d 934 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
Nickelberry v. Ritchie Grocer Co., 196 La.
Dragon v. Orleans Parish Sch. Bd. 347 So. 2d 306 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1977
Todero v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. 343 So. 2d 388 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
Layton v. S. H. Bolinger Co. 335 So. 2d 695 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
Walker v. Belden Corporation 331 So. 2d 167 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
2 Cir. 1974); , (1963); (La.App.
Alfred v. Travelers Ins. Co. 322 So. 2d 872 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
Campbell v. Kansas City Southern Railroad Co. 297 So. 2d 798 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1974
(1963) our Supreme Court, in discussing what is meant by preponderance of the evidence in compensation cases, states that `speculation, conjecture, near possibility, and even unsupported probabilities, are not sufficient * * *.'
Whatley v. Travelers Insurance Co. 297 So. 2d 480 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
Vicknair v. SOUTHERN FARM BUREAU CASUALTY INSU. C. 292 So. 2d 747 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1974
In discussing what is meant by "preponderance of evidence", , , said that "speculation, conjecture, near possibility and even unsupported probabilities are not sufficient."
Grigsby v. Argonaut Insurance Company 297 So. 2d 698 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
Toomer v. Highlands Insurance Co. 295 So. 2d 844 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
Schwab v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York 294 So. 2d 888 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
White v. EA Caldwell Contractors, Inc. 276 So. 2d 762 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1973
Thomas v. St. Patrick's Hospital 276 So. 2d 749 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1973
Guillory v. New Amsterdam Casualty Company, et al., , (1963).
Sensley v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 269 So. 2d 473 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
Bates v. Rockwood Insurance 270 So. 2d 135 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
(1960); and Buxton v. W. Horace Williams Company, 203 La.
McVay v. Fireman's Insurance Co. of Newark 264 So. 2d 740 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
Oliver v. T & C Contractors 264 So. 2d 225 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
Fife v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. 263 So. 2d 351 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
(1963), our Supreme Court, in discussing what is meant by preponderance of the evidence in compensation cases, states that 'speculation, conjecture, near possibility, and even unsupported probabilities, are not sufficient * * *.’ In Bernard v. Louisiana Wildlife & Fisheries Commission
Roman v. Broussard 255 So. 2d 135 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
Nunsant v. Louisiana Paper Co. 255 So. 2d 147 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
Webre v. Service Painting Company of Beaumont 252 So. 2d 675 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
Freeman v. Standard Materials, Inc. 246 So. 2d 258 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
Hargis v. Travelers Indemnity Company 248 So. 2d 613 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1971
Mamon v. Western Waterproofing Co. 243 So. 2d 105 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
Guidry v. Gianfala & Son, Inc. 228 So. 2d 347 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
Adams v. Home Indemnity Company, La.App., (3rd Cir.1965); , (1963).
Morris v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Co. 228 So. 2d 261 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
699 , ; Webber v. Wofford-Brindley Lumber Company, La.App., ; , .
King v. Employers Mutual of Wausau 220 So. 2d 201 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
(1963) and citations therein; (La.App.
Hughes v. Chrysler Corp. 216 So. 2d 636 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
Nickelberry v. Ritchie Grocer Co., 196 La.
Griffin v. Phoenix Insurance Co. 213 So. 2d 73 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
The jurisprudence is well settled in this State to the effect that “speculation, conjecture, near possibility, and even unsupported probabilities, are not sufficient to support a judgment.” , .
Saia v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. 214 So. 2d 173 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
Carrier v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., La.App., ; and Anderson v. Southern Fabricators Corporation, La.App., , which hold that the plaintiff in a compensation suit, like other plaintiffs, is required to establish all essential elements of his claim, including a causal c
Guidry v. Travelers Insurance Co. 210 So. 2d 399 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
Davis v. Zurich Insurance 210 So. 2d 620 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
(1963) and cases cited therein.
Gautreaux v. Travelers Insurance Co. 205 So. 2d 783 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967