DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Gaspard v. LeMaire, 158 So. 2d 149.

655 citing documents.

  • Hoover v. Wagner 189 So. 2d 20 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
    but find that in the instant case the award is excessive when compared to awards for similar injuries in other cases.
  • Beavers v. Butler 188 So. 2d 725 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1966
    But, , (1963), and Ballard v. National Indemnity Company of Omaha, Neb., 246 La.
  • Thibodeaux v. Reliance Insurance Co. 189 So. 2d 321 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
    963 , ; , ; Evers v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins.
  • Voelker v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company 190 So. 2d 136 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1966
    963 , ; , ; Phillips v. Cohen, La.App., .
  • Mose v. Allstate Insurance 188 So. 2d 477 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
  • Townzen v. Allstate Insurance Company 188 So. 2d 474 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1966
    Without detailing the medical evidence in the instant case, , , as clarified in Ballard v. National Indemnity Company of Omaha, Neb., 246 La.
  • McConathy v. United Services Automobile Ass'n 188 So. 2d 470 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1966
    as clarified in Ballard v. National Indemnity Company of Omaha, Neb., 246 La.
  • Hall Houston v. City of Shreveport 188 So. 2d 923 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
    In this regard, , (1963), and Ballard v. National Indemnity Company of Omaha, Neb., 246 La.
  • Coleman v. Argonaut Insurance 187 So. 2d 495 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
    our Supreme Court enunciated the principle concerning the imputation of a driver-son’s negligence to his guest passenger-mother: “Nor can we agree with the theory of the Court of Appeal that the negligence of the son must be imputed to the mother because the mother was vested with the theoretical rig
  • Breitenbach v. Green 186 So. 2d 712 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1966
  • Jaeger v. Herald 186 So. 2d 365 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1966
    Co., , recently decided by this court, April 4, 1966, this panel had occasion to consider quantum of damages for similar whiplash injuries and said: " , ; Ballard v. National Indemnity Company of Omaha, Neb., 246 La.
  • Pizzalato v. Employers Mutuals of Wausau 186 So. 2d 363 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
    963 , (1964), , (1963), and have made no attempt to arrive at a figure merely for the sake of uniformity of awards.
  • Duhon v. Cormier 186 So. 2d 645 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1966
    963 , , ), including estimated special damages (where the latter are not readily susceptible of exact proof although there is a proven right to recovery, the courts have reasonable discretion to assess same based upon all the facts and circumstances *650 of the case, Brantley v. Tremont & Gulf Ry.
  • Linthicum v. Hill 185 So. 2d 866 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
  • Alexander v. Fidelity-Phoenix Insurance Co. 185 So. 2d 102 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
    Ballard v. National Indemnity Company of Omaha, Neb., 246 La.
  • Luquette v. Bouillion 184 So. 2d 766 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1966
  • Followed Carter v. Connecticut Fire Insurance 184 So. 2d 30 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
    Ballard v. National Indemnity Company of Omaha, Neb., 246 La.
  • Self v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 183 So. 2d 68 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1966
    Ballard v. National Indemnity Co. of Omaha, Nebraska, 246 La.
  • Followed Phillips v. Cohen 183 So. 2d 473 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1966
    Ballard v. National Indemnity Company of Omaha, Neb., 246 La.
  • Kibodeaux v. Travelers Insurance Co. 182 So. 2d 83 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
  • Talley v. Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Co. 181 So. 2d 784 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1966
    and Ballard v. National Indemnity Co. of Omaha, Neb., 246 La.
  • Ward v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 182 So. 2d 130 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1966
    963 , , , , we are of the opinion that the $7,500 award does not abuse the discretion vested in the trial court.
  • Cannon v. Standard Accident Insurance 181 So. 2d 471 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
    In connection with our review •of the quantum of 'damages as assessed by Trial Courts, , , as further explained and amplified in the case of Ballard v. National Indemnity Company of Omaha, Nebraska, 246 La.
  • Slayter v. Allstate Insurance 180 So. 2d 543 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
    In the recent case of Boss v. Broussard (La.App., 3 Cir., 1965), , this Court said: “ , (1963) and its progeny, Ballard v. National Indemnity Company of Omaha, Neb., 246 La.
  • American Home Assurance Co. v. Coleman 180 So. 2d 577 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
    : “Nor can we agree with the theory of the Court of Appeal that the negligence of the son must be imputed to the mother because the mother was vested with the theoretical right of control of the son’s operation of the car.
  • Cinquemano v. O'Quinn 180 So. 2d 873 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
    Ballard v. National Indemnity Company of Omaha, 246 La.
  • Fulgium v. Lamb 179 So. 2d 676 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
    390 , (1960); , (1963); Wesley v. Home Indemnity Company, 245 La.
  • Mathews v. Employers Mutual Fire Insurance 180 So. 2d 38 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
    cited by learned counsel for defendants, is not factually analogous and is inapplicable, among other distinctions, because it deals with the principle of contributory rather than primary negligence.
  • Garris v. Jabbia 179 So. 2d 486 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
    In finding that Mrs. Garris’s negligence was the sole proximate cause of the accident, the trial court apparently concluded that Mrs. Garris was mistaken (since Jabbia’s failure to notice a timely left-turn signal might have constituted concurrent negligence on his part, , ).
  • Boss v. Broussard 178 So. 2d 334 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
  • Knotts v. Employers Casualty Company 177 So. 2d 630 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1965
    The law as to appellate review of damages is set forth in the recent much discussed *631 , (1963), and its progeny, Ballard v. National Indemnity of Omaha, Nebraska, 246 La.
  • Young v. Hearin Tank Lines, Inc. 176 So. 2d 790 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
    Under all of the circumstances, and in view of the “much discretion” allowed the trial court as to the amounts of awards, , 158 So.
  • Laville v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co. 178 So. 2d 464 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
    Considering all of the circumstances of the instant case, particularly that following the accident plaintiff was never thereafter able to pursue full time his occupation as salesman as hereinafter appears, we consider the award of $3,000.00 , , and Ballard v. National Indemnity Company of Omaha, Neb., 246 La.
  • Austin v. Carriers Insurance Co. 176 So. 2d 754 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
    963 , (1964) the court in explanation of *756 its holding in Gaspard v. Lemaire (on rehearing) , (1963) said: “The much discussed Gaspard case recognized and applied the principle of law which has been in our Civil Code since 1825.
  • Fontana v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. 173 So. 2d 284 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1965
    See, e. g., , ; White v. State Farm Mut.
  • Paternostro v. Travelers Insurance Co. 176 So. 2d 165 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1965
  • Davis v. Cooperative Cab Co. 176 So. 2d 148 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
  • Phoenix Insurance v. Bennett 176 So. 2d 682 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
    Gaspard v. *684 LeMaire, , (1963).
  • Creasman v. Gilpin 175 So. 2d 879 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
    (1963) and Ballard v. National Indemnity Company of Omaha, Nebraska, 246 La.
  • James v. Lykes Bros. S. S. Co. 175 So. 2d 444 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
    963 , (1964), and its forerunner, , (1963), to the effect that the appellate courts should review all the facts and circumstances on which the trial court based the amount awarded to determine whether there has been an abuse of the “much discretion” vested in the trial court.
  • Miller v. Central Mutual Insurance Company 174 So. 2d 280 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1965
    963 , (Docket No. 47,152; November 13, 1964); , .
  • Taylor v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. 171 So. 2d 816 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1965
    our Supreme Court indicated that owner-passengers should, in suits against the driver for his negligence, be considered substantially the same as any other guest passenger.
  • Gouner v. Wulff 174 So. 2d 829 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
  • Micheli v. Toye Brothers Yellow Cab Company 174 So. 2d 168 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1965
  • Ballanga v. Hymel 175 So. 2d 274 La. 1965
    the doctrine of which was ■enunciated and approved in Ballard et ux.
  • Fontenot v. Grain Dealers Mutual Insurance Co. 170 So. 2d 513 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1965
    Before discussing the amounts of awards which have been made in previous cases for similar injuries, we would like to point out that we are aware of the very recent case of Ballard v. National Indemnity Co. of Omaha, Neb., La., (1964) , by stating: "In resolving the question of whether the jury in fixing the amount of the award in the Gaspard case had abused the discretion vested in it by law, we pointed out that `* * * In view of our codal provision, the appellate courts should consider the amo
  • Keaton v. Baas Beverage Service, Inc. 172 So. 2d 739 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
    963 , (1964); Gaspard v. LeMaire, on rehearing, , 158 So.2d' 149 (1963).
  • Marchadie v. Maryland Casualty Co. 173 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
  • Clark v. Spillman 173 So. 2d 203 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
    which the plaintiff cites as holding that it is not negligence per se to make a left hand turn in the event of an accident certainly afford no comfort to the plaintiff.
  • Hesse v. Marquette Casualty Company 170 So. 2d 173 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1965
    (1963); Ballard v. National Indemnity Company of Omaha, Nebraska, Sup.Ct.