Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Ballard v. National Indemnity Company of Omaha, Neb., 169 So. 2d 64.

362 citing documents.

McConathy v. United Services Automobile Ass'n 188 So. 2d 470 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1966
239 , , as clarified in Ballard v. National Indemnity Company of Omaha, Neb., , , we are constrained to consider the awards in previous similar cases only to determine *474 whether the award in the instant case is so excessive as to constitute an abuse of the "much discretion" of the jury as to quantum.
Hall Houston v. City of Shreveport 188 So. 2d 923 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
239 , (1963), and Ballard v. National Indemnity Company of Omaha, Neb., , (1964), the appellate courts may review all the facts and circumstances upon which the trial court based the quantum of award, as well as the amounts of awards in similar cases, to determine whether there has been an abuse of the “much discretion” vested in trial courts in assessing damages.
Huddleston v. Venable 186 So. 2d 633 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
Any determination as to the adequacy of the Gaspard case had abused the discretion the language of Ballard v. National Indemnity Company of Omaha, Nebraska, , in mind.
Breitenbach v. Green 186 So. 2d 712 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1966
Co., , (1964); Gaspard v. LeMaire, 245 La.
Jaeger v. Herald 186 So. 2d 365 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1966
239 , ; Ballard v. National Indemnity Company of Omaha, Neb., , , and Ballanga v. Hymel, 247 La.
Pizzalato v. Employers Mutuals of Wausau 186 So. 2d 363 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
Co., , (1964), and Gaspard v. LeMaire, 245 La.
Duhon v. Cormier 186 So. 2d 645 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1966
We find no abuse of the trial court's discretion in making such an award of general damages ( , and Gaspard v. Lemaire, 245 La.
Linthicum v. Hill 185 So. 2d 866 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
LSA-Civil Code Art. 1934(3); , ; Gaspard v. LeMaire, 245 La.
Alexander v. Fidelity-Phoenix Insurance Co. 185 So. 2d 102 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
239 , ; Ballard v. National Indemnity Company of Omaha, Neb., , , and Ballanga v. Hymel, 247 La.
Luquette v. Bouillion 184 So. 2d 766 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1966
LSA-Civil Code Art. 1934(3); , ; Gaspard v. LeMaire, 245 La.
Followed Carter v. Connecticut Fire Insurance 184 So. 2d 30 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
239 , , Ballard v. National Indemnity Company of Omaha, Neb., , , and Ballanga v. Hymel, 247 La.
Anderson v. Hudson 183 So. 2d 661 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
wherein the Supreme Court affirmed a reduction by the Court of Appeal to $750.00 of the damages awarded a plaintiff who was suffering from a whiplash injury, as authority for reduction of the quantum of damages awarded by the Trial Judge in this matter.
Hagan v. Home Indemnity Co. 183 So. 2d 73 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
Ballard, et ux v. National Indemnity Company of Omaha, Nebraska, , .
Self v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 183 So. 2d 68 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1966
239 , ; Ballard v. National Indemnity Co. of Omaha, Nebraska, , .
Followed Phillips v. Cohen 183 So. 2d 473 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1966
239 , , Ballard v. National Indemnity Company of Omaha, Neb., , , and Ballanga v. Hymel, 247 La.
Wiewiarawska v. Checker Cab Co. of New Orleans 182 So. 2d 832 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
See Ballard v. National Indemnity Company of Omaha, Nebraska, , .
Doucette v. Primeaux 180 So. 2d 866 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1966
Kibodeaux v. Travelers Insurance Co. 182 So. 2d 83 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
v. National Indemnity Company of Omaha, Nebraska, , .
Sebren v. Millers Mutual Fire Insurance co. of Texas 182 So. 2d 99 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
Downs v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., La.App., ; White v. Robbins, La.App., (3rd Cir. 1963) ; and Barras v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York, La.App., (3rd Cir. 1963).
Talley v. Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Co. 181 So. 2d 784 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1966
239 , and Ballard v. National Indemnity Co. of Omaha, Neb., , , it is certain there can be no fixed mathematical formula for assessing damages for multiple injuries, *791 with their accompanying pain and suffering and duration.
Ward v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 182 So. 2d 130 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1966
Under the holdings of Ballard v. National Indemnity Company of Omaha, Neb., , , and Gaspard v. LeMaire, 245 La.
Cannon v. Standard Accident Insurance 181 So. 2d 471 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
239 , , as further explained and amplified in the case of Ballard v. National Indemnity Company of Omaha, Nebraska, , .
Simms v. Sims 181 So. 2d 449 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
Ballard v. National Indemnity Company of Omaha, Neb., , .
Slayter v. Allstate Insurance 180 So. 2d 543 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
239 , (1963) and its progeny, Ballard v. National Indemnity Company of Omaha, Neb., , (1964), have established the rale that appellate review of the quantum of damages is confined to determining whether there has been an abuse of the ‘much discretion’ vested in the trial court.
Cinquemano v. O'Quinn 180 So. 2d 873 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
Howard v. Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York 179 So. 2d 522 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1965
Our Supreme Court has stated in Ballard v. The National Indemnity Company of Omaha, Nebraska, , , that: "The amount of awards in socalled `similar' cases are relevant only to determine whether the award is so excessive or so inadequate as to be in abuse of discretion."
Kershaw v. Deshotel 179 So. 2d 528 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1965
Ballard v. National Indemnity Company of Omaha, Neb., , (1964).
Cleveland v. McHenry 179 So. 2d 475 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
Our Supreme Court recently said in the case of Davis v. Cooperative Cab Co., La.App., , citing the case of Ballard v. The National Indemnity Co. of Omaha, Nebraska, , : “* * * On appeal, if the appellate court affirms the lower court and quantum is the issue, the court should then review all the facts and circumstances on which the lower court based the quantum of award, but this review is confined to determining whether there has been an abuse of the ‘much discretio
Daly v. Allstate Insurance 179 So. 2d 472 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
See Ballard, et ux v. National Indemnity Company of Omaha, Nebraska, , ; Ballanga v. Hymel et al., 247 La.
Sonnier v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. 179 So. 2d 467 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1965
Ballard v. National Indemnity Company of Omaha, Neb., , (1964).
Boss v. Broussard 178 So. 2d 334 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
2d 149 (1963) and its progeny, Ballard v. National Indemnity Company of Omaha, Neb, , (1964), have established the rule that appellate review of the quantum of damages is .confined to determining whether there has been an abuse of the “much discretion” vested in the trial court.
Knotts v. Employers Casualty Company 177 So. 2d 630 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1965
239 , (1963), and its progeny, Ballard v. National Indemnity of Omaha, Nebraska, , (1964).
Blackwell v. Travelers Indemnity Co. 176 So. 2d 751 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1965
See Ballard v. National Indemnity Company of Omaha, Nebraska, , .
Young v. Hearin Tank Lines, Inc. 176 So. 2d 790 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
2d 149 ; , (1964), we do not find this award to be an abuse of the trial judge’s discretion.
Laville v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co. 178 So. 2d 464 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
239 , , and Ballard v. National Indemnity Company of Omaha, Neb., , .
Crisler v. American Motorists Insurance 177 So. 2d 187 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
The ruling of the Supreme Court in Ballard v. National Indemnity Company of Omaha, Nebraska, , (1964) appears applicable.
Austin v. Carriers Insurance Co. 176 So. 2d 754 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
■ In Ballard v. National Indemnity Company of Omaha, Nebraska, , (1964) the court in explanation of *756 its holding in Gaspard v. Lemaire (on rehearing) 245 La.
Tamburello v. Jaeger 176 So. 2d 707 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1965
As in that case we are governed here by the principles of law set out by the Supreme Court in the recent case of Ballard v. National Indemnity Company of Omaha, Neb., , (1964).
Paternostro v. Travelers Insurance Co. 176 So. 2d 165 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1965
Applying the principle set out in Ballard v. National Indemnity Company of Omaha, Neb., , , and Gaspard v. LeMaire, 245 La.
Davis v. Cooperative Cab Co. 176 So. 2d 148 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
In considering the correctness of the jury’s award of $5,000, we are governed by the principles of law set out by the Supreme Court in the recent case of Ballard v. National Indemnity Company of Omaha, Neb., , (1964).
Goss v. Armstrong 176 So. 2d 462 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
Mogg v. Armstrong 176 So. 2d 463 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
Ponselle v. Armstrong 176 So. 2d 464 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
Peterson v. Armstrong 176 So. 2d 453 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1965
Creasman v. Gilpin 175 So. 2d 879 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
239 , (1963) and Ballard v. National Indemnity Company of Omaha, Nebraska, , (1964).
James v. Lykes Bros. S. S. Co. 175 So. 2d 444 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
This decision is to be made in the light of the already oft-quoted rule of Ballard v. National Indemnity Company of Omaha, Neb., , (1964), and its forerunner, Gaspard v. LeMaire, 245 La.
Miller v. Central Mutual Insurance Company 174 So. 2d 280 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1965
LSA-Civil Code Art. 1934(3); , (Docket No. 47,152; November 13, 1964); Gaspard v. LeMaire, 245 La.
Gouner v. Wulff 174 So. 2d 829 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
We are mindful of the limitations placed upon appellate courts with respect to reduction of awards by trial courts in personal injury cases as set forth in the recent pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Ballard v. National Indemnity Company of Omaha, Neb., , , in elucidation of the holding in Gaspard v. LeMaire, 245 La.
Micheli v. Toye Brothers Yellow Cab Company 174 So. 2d 168 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1965
See Ballard v. National Indemnity Company of Omaha, Neb., , ; Gaspard v. LeMaire, 245 La.
Ballanga v. Hymel 175 So. 2d 274 La. 1965
v. National Indemnity Company of Omaha, Nebraska, , , in that it increased the award made by the district judge without any showing that the latter had abused his discretion when determining the nature and extent of plaintiff’s injuries.