DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

67 citing documents.

  • Guillot v. Winn-Dixie of Louisiana, Inc. 189 So. 2d 52 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
    (1963); Green v. Heard Motor Co., 224 La.
  • Carrier v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 186 So. 2d 445 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
    Anderson v. Southern Fabricators Corp., La.App., ; Hebert v. Your Food Processing & Warehouse Co., La.App., .
  • Stuart v. Anheuser-Busch Co. 185 So. 2d 333 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
    197 , ; Taylor v. Hawkins, La.App., ; , ; Page v. Home Indemnity Co., La.App., , cert.
  • Prater v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company 182 So. 2d 805 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1966
    (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 * * *."
  • Pace v. Rizzuto 182 So. 2d 809 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1966
    Co., , (1963); White v. Johness, 237 La.
  • Russo v. Maryland Casualty Co. 182 So. 2d 707 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
  • Sanderson v. Employers Liability Assurance Corp. 181 So. 2d 869 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
  • McCoy v. Vince 180 So. 2d 734 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
    Glover v. Acme Brick Company, La.App., ; Kagler v. Travelers Indemnity Company, La.App., .
  • Duhon v. Pittsburg Plate Glass Co. 179 So. 2d 469 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
    The most recent expression of our Supreme Court as to the required proof of causal connection between the accident and disability, , (1963).
  • Adams v. Home Indemnity Co. 180 So. 2d 51 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
    (1963) plaintiff suffered a pre-existing spondylolithesis which he contended was aggravated by a back sprain received in the accident.
  • Burk v. Security Insurance 177 So. 2d 278 La. 1965
    1012 , (1964); , (1963); Gilmore v. Brown and Root Co., 160 So.
  • Lindsey v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. 175 So. 2d 831 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
  • Credeur v. McManus 175 So. 2d 863 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
    Guillory v. New Amsterdam Casualty Company, et al., , .
  • Gates v. Ashy Construction Company 171 So. 2d 742 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1965
  • Kinchen v. Jack Mashburn, Inc. 174 So. 2d 283 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
    In Guillory v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co., et al. (1963) , on page 239, , on page 6, the Supreme Court said: *285 “[1] Even though this is a compensation suit, plaintiff bears the burden of proof, as in other civil cases, and must establish his claim by a preponderance of the evidence and to a legal certainty.
  • Washington v. Maryland Casualty Co. 159 So. 2d 712 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
    225 , (1953); Gillespie v. American Bakeries Company, La.App., ; Prothro v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company, La.App., .
  • Johnson v. W. C. Fatjo, Inc. 154 So. 2d 781 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
    Ellzey v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York, La.App., .” *786 , , our Supreme Court said: “Even though this is a compensation suit, plaintiff bears the burden of proof, as in other civil cases, and must establish his claim by a preponderance of the evidence and to a legal certainty.