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.

  • Robertson v. Insurance Co. of North America 171 So. 2d 715 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
    Ballard v. National Indemnity Company of Omaha, Nebraska, 246 La.
  • Orrell v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance 172 So. 2d 180 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
    The Louisiana Supreme Court, , , overruled prior court of appeal decisions imputing negligence of a driver to the owner-passenger when the imputation was based solely on the owner-passenger’s theoretical right to control the operation of the vehicle.
  • Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance v. Minor 171 So. 2d 703 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1965
    is proper here and the Court must find the drivers of both vehicles guilty of negligence, which negligence on part of each was the proximate cause of the accident.” The Supreme Court, in the case cited by the trial judge, held that an overtaking driver who attempted to pass without slackening speed o
  • Dean v. Travelers Insurance Company 171 So. 2d 708 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1965
    963 , (1964); Gaspard v. LeMaire, on rehearing, , (1963).
  • Loridans v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co. 172 So. 2d 323 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1965
  • Sims v. Heine 170 So. 2d 675 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
  • McCorquodale v. Watson 170 So. 2d 545 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1965
    LSA-Civil Code Art. 1934(3); Ballard v. National Indemnity Co., La., (Docket No. 47,152; November 13, 1964); , .
  • Viosca v. Touro Infirmary 170 So. 2d 222 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
  • Skidmore v. Gayden 169 So. 2d 590 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
    * * * ” , (1963), the Supreme Court discussed at length the rules to be observed in awarding damages.
  • Anselmo v. United States Fire Insurance 169 So. 2d 550 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
    Under the authority of the rule set out in the recent Supreme Court cases of Gaspard v. LeMaire, on rehearing, , , and Ballard v. National Indemnity Company of Omaha, Nebraska (consolidated with Craft v. National Indemnity Company of Omaha, Nebraska), Supreme Court of Louisiana, , handed down on November 13, 1964, we have considered the amounts of awards granted or approved by appellate courts of thi
  • Wright v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 169 So. 2d 623 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
  • Meyers v. Allstate Insurance 169 So. 2d 724 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
  • Fowler v. F. W. Woolworth Co. 169 So. 2d 754 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
  • Winfree v. Consolidated Underwriters 169 So. 2d 71 La. 1964
    Counsel for plaintiffs contend the Court of Appeal, in reducing the awards, erred inasmuch as it applied the “discarded rule of uniformity” as enunciated in Cassreino v. Brown, La.App., , , .
  • Ballard v. National Indemnity Company of Omaha, Neb. 169 So. 2d 64 La. 1964
    Counsel for plaintiffs contend the Court of Appeal, contrary to the recent decision of this court in the case of Gaspard v. LeMaire, on rehearing, , , in reducing the awards after reading the evidence in the record, substituted its judgment for that of the trial judge without finding in what respect he had manifestly erred or abused his discretion, and applied the “discarded doctrine of uniformity,” enunciated in Cassreino v. Brown, La.App., 144 So
  • Edwards v. Trahan 168 So. 2d 365 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1964
  • Simmons v. Zeno 168 So. 2d 357 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1964
  • Rusk v. Allstate Insurance Company 167 So. 2d 205 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1964
    The organ of the court (who subscribed to the opinion of the majority only in order *207 to expedite decision of this matter) and myself, , 158 So.
  • Glass v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 166 So. 2d 552 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
    we are of the opinion that the amount awarded does not abuse the discretion vested in the trial court and, accordingly, we will neither increase nor decrease that amount.
  • Brunson v. Royal Indemnity Co. 166 So. 2d 656 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
    is that the function of the reviewing Court is simply to determine whether the present Trial Court award is manifestly excessive or manifestly insufficient under all the circumstances of the present case.
  • Winfree v. Consolidated Underwriters 163 So. 2d 377 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1964
    in which our Supreme Court enjoined the appellate courts from over emphasizing uniformity of awards.
  • James v. Childs, Division of Kroger Company 166 So. 2d 77 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1964
  • Guerra v. WJ Young Construction Company 165 So. 2d 882 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1964
    We find no reason either to decrease or to increase the quantum awarded by the jury, since under all the circumstances of this case we cannot say that the jury "abused its discretion in fixing the award", , (1963).
  • True v. McDonald 165 So. 2d 582 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
  • Bee v. Liberty Mutual Insurance 165 So. 2d 73 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
    We cannot say, under the circumstances here, that the District Court “abused its discretion in fixing the award”, , (1963), and we therefore leave the amount of the award to Mrs. Bee undisturbed.
  • Poleman v. Employers Liability Assurance Corp. 164 So. 2d 630 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1964
    defendant contends that the award of $10,000 to Mrs. Poleman is all out of proportion with awards made for similar injuries in previous cases.
  • Thibodeaux v. Sternberg 164 So. 2d 606 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
  • Jacobs v. Marquette Casualty Co. 164 So. 2d 612 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
  • Deshotels v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance 164 So. 2d 694 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
    Fullilove v. United States Casualty Company of New York, La.App.
  • Winfree v. Consolidated Underwriters 164 So. 2d 183 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
  • Brown v. Rousseve 163 So. 2d 849 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
    we find no reason to increase or decrease the award of $4,000.00 to Miss Bourgeois in this case.
  • Town of Slidell v. Temple 164 So. 2d 276 La. 1964
  • Andrus v. Security Insurance Company of New Haven 161 So. 2d 113 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1964
    Art. 1934 (3); Gaspard v. LeMaire, La., .
  • Ayres v. Great American Insurance 163 So. 2d 866 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
    (1963) our Supreme Court reminded the appellate courts that greater consideration should be given to the principle enunciated in LSA-C.C.
  • Thomas v. Paper Haulers, Inc. 165 So. 2d 61 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1964
    In line with this latter statement, , .
  • Birdwell v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance 162 So. 2d 14 La. 1964
    McCALEB, J., is of the opinion that a , .
  • Howard v. Insurance Company of North America 162 So. 2d 165 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1964
    Gaspard v. Lemaire, (On Rehearing), , .
  • Stelly v. Liberty Mutual Insurance 162 So. 2d 167 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
    In view of the medical testimony in the instant case, , , we do not find the award of the trial judge manifestly inadequate or excessive.
  • Ballard v. NATIONAL INDEMNITY CO. OF OMAHA, NEB. 159 So. 2d 763 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1964
    Gaspard v. LeMaire, La., .
  • Maryland v. Allstate Insurance 162 So. 2d 226 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
    Same seems to us to be reasonable and, moreover, there was certainly no “abuse of the discretion” , .
  • Safer v. Gilbert 161 So. 2d 430 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
    The majority, in its conclusion, , , observes: “We fail to see where the Judge of the Lower Court has abused his discretion in fixing the awards in this case and therefore the judgment of the Lower Court is affirmed.” To me the paralogism of the conclusion of the majority in the Gaspard case is made evident from a simple reading of the
  • Lemon v. Houston Fire & Casualty Insurance 162 So. 2d 127 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
    Although this award does seem somewhat excessive, , , the Louisiana Supreme Court stated the function of the appellate court in questions of quantum as follows: “In a case decided just this year by the Third Circuit Court of Appeal, White v. Robbins, La.App., , that court took a realistic and proper view of the value and the weight to be g
  • Cole v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company 160 So. 2d 785 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1964
    *791 As the Supreme Court recently stated, , 158 So.
  • Fontenot v. Marquette Casualty Company 161 So. 2d 467 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1964
    This Court is aware of the recent decision by our State Supreme Court in Gaspard v. LeMaire, La., , opinion on rehearing November 12, 1963.
  • Henderson v. Westchester Fire Insurance 161 So. 2d 144 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
    In any event we think the evidence supports the award of $1500 and in line with the recent case of Gaspard v. LeMaire (Sup.Ct.1963) , interpreting LSA-Civil Code Art. 1934, subd.
  • Dever v. GEORGE THERIOR'S INC. 159 So. 2d 602 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1964
    (opinion on rehearing, rendered November 12, 1963).
  • Persinger v. Purvis 160 So. 2d 27 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
    Although the jury awards to plaintiff are conservative as compared to awards in other cases involving similar injuries and damages, in view of the recent holding of the Supreme Court in the case of Gaspard v. LeMaire, La., , we do not find the jury’s award to be manifestly inadequate under all the facts and circumstances of this case.
  • McGee v. Audubon Insurance 162 So. 2d 186 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
    Gaspard v. LeMaire, La., .
  • Frederick v. Hixson 159 So. 2d 599 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
    In the recent case of Gaspard v. Lemaire, La., , the Louisiana Supreme Court stated that “the adequacy or inadequacy of the award should be determined by the facts and circumstances peculiar to the case under consideration.” It further stated that “[t]he primary question before the appellate court, then, is whether the judge or the jury in fixing the amount of the
  • Chivers v. Couch Motor Lines, Inc. 159 So. 2d 544 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1964
    Gaspard v. LeMaire, La., (Opinion on rehearing rendered November 12, 1963).