Cited by

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

655 citing documents.

Semien v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 398 So. 2d 161 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
Lewis v. Till 395 So. 2d 737 La. 1981
Triplett v. Amiss 395 So. 2d 374 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
Jack v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co. 392 So. 2d 499 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
Gasquet v. Commercial Union Ins. Co. 391 So. 2d 466 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
(1963), : `* * * When the doctrine is urged as applicable, cases relied upon may be similar in that each of them involves a similar injury such as a broken arm, the loss of an eye or eyes, or the loss of some member of the body.
Hukill v. US Fidelity and Guaranty Co. 386 So. 2d 172 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
The Supreme Court, , (1963) has, in unequivocal language, announced the principle that before a court of appeal can disturb an award made by a trial court that the record must clearly reveal that the trier of fact abused its discretion in m
Wall v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. 389 So. 2d 80 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
Fontenot v. American Fidelity Fire Ins. Co. 386 So. 2d 165 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
In that case, the court accosted anew and recriticized the practice of using a scale or prior awards given for generically analogous injuries, , (1963) and Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.
McGowan v. Farris 384 So. 2d 544 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., La., ; Reck v. Stevens, La., .
Choate v. Louisiana Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. 384 So. 2d 511 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
Louisiana Revised Statutes 32:104; , (1963); (La.App.
Lawrence v. Hartsuck 383 So. 2d 453 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
(1963); Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
Walters v. Thrasher 381 So. 2d 557 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
(1963), where the court explained the function of the appellate court in reviewing the damage award to be: “.
Searcy v. Porter 381 So. 2d 540 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1980
Fleming v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. 380 So. 2d 687 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
Art. 1934(3); , ; Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., La., ; Reck v. Stevens, La., .
Wexler v. Occhipinti 378 So. 2d 1073 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1979
Worsham v. Hanover Insurance Co. 378 So. 2d 1060 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
where the supreme court delineated the issue before the appellate court to be: “.
Hardie v. Pylant 375 So. 2d 189 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1979
(1963) is the fountainhead decision of modern jurisprudence interpreting and applying this code provision.
Reck v. Stevens 373 So. 2d 498 La. 1979
(1963) is the fountainhead decision of modern jurisprudence interpreting and applying this code provision.
Parker v. Travelers Ins. Co. 369 So. 2d 1120 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
1 Cir. 1950), , (1963), that previous awards should be used only as an aid in determining whether the trier had abused its "much discretion," LSA-C.C.
Dawson v. Piazza 371 So. 2d 283 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
1 Cir. 1950), , (1963), that previous awards should be used only as an aid in determining whether the trier had abused its ‘much discretion,’ LSA-C.C.
Criticized Farmer v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. 368 So. 2d 487 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
We decline to follow Mathews, supra, , (1963).
Lanclos v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. 366 So. 2d 621 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1978
(1963); Ballard v. National Indemnity Company of Omaha, Neb., 246 La.
Hill v. Benoit 358 So. 2d 326 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
Art. 1934(3); , ; Ballard v. National Indemnity Company of Omaha, Neb., 246 La.
Washington v. Dixie Leas. of New Orleans, Inc. 352 So. 2d 363 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
Carter v. Salter 351 So. 2d 312 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
(1963); Vitale v. Checker Cab Co., 166 La.
Umbehagen v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. 348 So. 2d 122 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1977
quoting with approval the following on page 152: `"As a general rule, it may be said that in order to impute the negligence of one person to another, there must exist between them some relation of master or superior and servant or subordinate or other relation akin thereto.
Teal v. Allstate Ins. Co. 348 So. 2d 83 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1977
Billeaud v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 349 So. 2d 1379 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
(1963); Ballard v. National Indemnity Company of Omaha, Neb., 246 La.
Billeaud v. UNITED STATE FIDELITY & GUAR. CO. 349 So. 2d 1379 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
(1963); Ballard v. National Indemnity Company of Omaha, Neb., 246 La.
Gaudet v. Allstate Ins. Co. 346 So. 2d 333 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1977
[1a] " So.2d 149 (1963), reaffirmed the codal provision that quantum determinations may not be altered absent a showing that the trial court abused its "great discretion."
Schexnayder v. Carpenter 346 So. 2d 196 La. 1977
Walker v. St. Paul Ins. Companies 343 So. 2d 251 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
Martinez v. THERMA-KING SALES & SERV. DIV. OF TRAS. 346 So. 2d 798 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
art. 1934(3); , (1963); Vercher v. Toda Enterprises, Inc., (La.App.
Profit v. Linn 346 So. 2d 253 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
Gaspard v. Le Maire, 245 La.239, (1963).
Betbeze v. Cherokee Nat. Ins. Co. 345 So. 2d 577 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1977
Ledet v. Hibernia National Bank of New Orleans 344 So. 2d 52 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
The court commented that the award was high for that type of injury, , (1963).
Smith v. Taylor 343 So. 2d 313 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
(1963) and continuing to the latest case of Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., our Supreme Court has attempted to clarify what constitutes an abuse of much discretion.
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc. 341 So. 2d 332 La. 1977
We granted review (La., ) upon plaintiff's complaint that the drastic reduction violated Civil Code Article 1934(3) , (1963); Ballard v. National Indemnity Company of Omaha, Neb., 246 La.
Guillot v. Travelers Indem. Co. 338 So. 2d 334 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
1934(3); , Ballard v. National Indemnity Company of Omaha, Nebraska, 246 La.
Givens v. T & M Fertilizer Co. 340 So. 2d 1057 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
Appellants, , (1963), (La.App.
Aymond v. STATE, THROUGH DEPT. OF HIGHWAYS 333 So. 2d 383 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
In referring to another Supreme Court case, , (1963), the Court in Miller again set forth the principle that, "the adequacy or inadequacy of the award should be determined by the facts and circumstances peculiar to the case under consideration."
Ardoin v. STATE, THROUGH DEPT. OF HIGHWAYS 333 So. 2d 412 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
Lomenick v. Schoeffler, 250 La.
Reed v. West Bros. of Eunice, L.A., Inc. 338 So. 2d 324 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
Macaluso v. Populis 339 So. 2d 386 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
963 , (1964), rehearing denied (1964) , (1963), the Supreme Court, in Miller v. Thomas, 258 La.
Sanders v. Western Casualty & Surety Company 337 So. 2d 286 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1976
(1963), our courts have consistently held this Civil Code article means what it so clearly provides.
Hickman v. Sumrall 335 So. 2d 479 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc. 330 So. 2d 649 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
(Emphasis added) I , (1963), and Lomenick v. Schoeffler, 250 La.
Walker v. Fontenot 329 So. 2d 762 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
Reggio v. Louisiana Gas Service Co. 333 So. 2d 395 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1976
General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Madden 331 So. 2d 882 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1976
Civil Code Article 1934(3); , (1963), and its progeny.