DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Olds v. Ashley, 200 So. 2d 1.

98 citing documents.

  • Richard v. Trahan 417 So. 2d 103 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    It is only after articulated analysis of the facts discloses an abuse of discretion, that the award may on appellate review, for articulated reason, be considered either excessive, or insufficient, , (1967).
  • Merrell v. State, Through Dept. of Transp. 415 So. 2d 660 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
    It is only after articulated analysis of the facts discloses an abuse of discretion, that the award may on appellate review, for articulated reason, be considered either excessive, or insufficient, , (1967).
  • Tucker v. Howes 413 So. 2d 585 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    It is only after articulated analysis of the facts discloses an abuse of discretion, that the award may on appellate review, for articulated reason, be considered either excessive, or insufficient, , (1967).
  • Faulk v. Cagle Supply, Inc. 412 So. 2d 1020 La. 1982
    (1967), the trial judge entered a judgment for plaintiff, but felt her injuries were greatly exaggerated; he also did not believe the testimony of plaintiffs doctor because the physician had given similar whiplash testimony in other cases.
  • Breaux v. Allstate Insurance 411 So. 2d 1230 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    (1967); Farley v. Ryan Stevedoring Co., 238 La.
  • Black v. Ebasco Services, Inc. 411 So. 2d 1159 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    It is only after articulated analysis of the facts discloses an abuse of discretion, that the award may on appellate review, for articulated reason, be considered either excessive, or insufficient, , (1967).
  • Thames v. Zerangue 411 So. 2d 17 La. 1982
    (1967), plaintiff was involved in a rear end collision and sustained whiplash injuries.
  • Blanchard v. A-1 Bit and Tool Co., Inc. 406 So. 2d 773 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
    It is only after articulated analysis of the facts discloses an abuse of discretion, that the award may on appellate review, for articulated reason, be considered either excessive, or insufficient, , (1967).
  • Wattigny v. Lambert 408 So. 2d 1126 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
    It is only after articulated analysis of the facts discloses an abuse of discretion, that the award may on appellate review, for articulated reason, be considered either excessive, or insufficient, , (1967).
  • Levesque v. Saba 402 So. 2d 266 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
    It is only after articulated analysis of the facts discloses an abuse of discretion, that the award may on appellate review, for articulated reason, be considered either excessive, or insufficient, , (1967).
  • Autin v. Allstate Ins. Co. 402 So. 2d 219 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
  • Juneau v. Garan, Inc. 399 So. 2d 735 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    (1967); Farley v. Ryan Stevedoring Co., 238 La.
  • Locicero v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co. 399 So. 2d 712 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    It is only after articulated analysis of the facts discloses an abuse of discretion, that the award may on appellate review, for articulated reason, be considered either excessive, or insufficient, , (1967).
  • Provost v. A. E. Gravois & Sons, Inc. 398 So. 2d 1287 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    It is only after articulated analysis of the facts discloses an abuse of discretion, that the award may on appellate review, for articulated reason, be considered either excessive, or insufficient, , (1967).
  • Mullin v. Vessier 400 So. 2d 1192 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    It is only after articulated analysis of the facts discloses an abuse of discretion, that the award may on appellate review, for articulated reason, be considered either excessive, or insufficient, , (1967).
  • Cappo v. Vinson Guard Service, Inc. 400 So. 2d 1148 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    n the court outlined the test for appellate courts to use in reviewing awards as follows: "It is only after articulated analysis of the facts discloses an abuse of discretion, that the award may on appellate review, for articulated reason, be considered either excessive, or insufficient, , (1967)."
  • Knuckles v. Beaugh 392 So. 2d 710 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
  • Richard v. Guillory 392 So. 2d 777 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
    Schexnayder v. Carpenter, supra; , (1967).
  • Litton v. Home Indemnity Co. 391 So. 2d 541 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    It is only after articulated analysis of the facts discloses an abuse of discretion, that the award may on appellate review, for articulated reason, be considered either excessive, or insufficient, , (1967).
  • Prats v. Moffett 391 So. 2d 1299 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    It is only after articulated analysis of the facte discloses an abuse of discretion, that the award may on appellate review, for *1303 articulated reason, be considered either excessive, or insufficient, , (1967).
  • Chaney v. Our Lady of Fatima Cath. Church 391 So. 2d 501 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
  • Hoover v. State 393 So. 2d 187 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    (1967); Coleman v. Manufacturers Casualty Insurance Company, 229 La.
  • Benedic v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. 389 So. 2d 871 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    It is only after articulated analysis of the facts discloses an abuse of discretion, that the award may on appellate review, for articulated reasons, be considered either excessive, or insufficient, , (1967).” At 501.
  • Wilson v. Evans Cooperage Co. 387 So. 2d 72 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    (1967).” 329 So.2d at 225 .
  • Choate v. Greene 386 So. 2d 948 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    It is only after articulated analysis of the facts discloses an abuse of discretion, that the award may on appellate review, for articulated reason, be considered either excessive, or insufficient, , 200 So.2d.
  • Johnson v. Coca Cola Bottling Co., Inc. 386 So. 2d 993 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
    It is only after articulated analysis of the facts discloses an abuse of discretion, that the award may on appellate review, for articulated reason, be considered either excessive, or insufficient, , (1967).
  • Hebert v. Diamond M Co. 385 So. 2d 410 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    It is only after articulated analysis of the facts discloses an abuse of discretion, that the award may on appellate review, for articulated reason, be considered either excessive, or insufficient, , (1967).
  • Johnson v. Franks 383 So. 2d 117 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    It is only after articulated analysis of the facts discloses an abuse of discretion, that the award may on appellate review, for articulated reason, be considered either excessive, or insufficient, , (1967).
  • Perry v. Domingue 383 So. 2d 130 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    It is only after articulated analysis of the facts discloses an abuse of discretion, that the award may on appellate review, for articulated reason, be considered either excessive, or insufficient, , (1967).
  • Besnard v. Department of Highways 381 So. 2d 1303 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
    It is only after articulated analysis of the facts discloses an abuse of discretion, that the award may on appellate review, for articulated reason, be considered either excessive, or insufficient, , (1967).
  • Charleston v. Nabors Trailers, Inc. 381 So. 2d 894 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1980
    (1967); Farley v. Ryan Stevedoring Co., 238 La.
  • Smith v. Burden Const. Co. 379 So. 2d 1135 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1980
  • Wexler v. Occhipinti 378 So. 2d 1073 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1979
    It is only after articulated analysis of the facts discloses an abuse of discretion, that the award may on appellate review, for articulated reason, be considered either excessive, or insufficient, , (1967).
  • Reck v. Stevens 373 So. 2d 498 La. 1979
    It is only after articulated analysis of the facts discloses an abuse of discretion, that the award may on appellate review, for articulated reason, be considered either excessive, or insufficient, , (1967).
  • West v. Bayou Vista Manor, Inc. 371 So. 2d 1146 La. 1979
    (1967); Farley v. Ryan Stevedoring Co., 238 La.
  • Lester v. EMPLOYERS MUT. LIABILITY INS. CO. 333 So. 2d 672 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
    Plaintiff relies on several cases to support his contention that courts should not reject expert evidence and testimony from appraisers who are knowledgeable in the field under consideration, , (1967).
  • Huett v. Insurance Company of North America 329 So. 2d 222 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1976
  • Chauvin v. Clark 326 So. 2d 609 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    4th Cir. 1969); , (1967)
  • Johnson v. Peerless Insurance Co. 299 So. 2d 434 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1974
  • B. Segall Company, Inc. v. Trahan 290 So. 2d 854 La. 1974
  • Mayeux v. Mock 278 So. 2d 591 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
  • Hale v. McCoin 271 So. 2d 723 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
    (1967), the Supreme Court of Louisiana took the opportunity to review several decisions involving whip-lash injuries and held that awards in cases involving similar injuries were relevant only to determine whether or not the award is so excessive or inadequate as to constitute an abuse of discretion.
  • Hargis v. Travelers Indemnity Company 248 So. 2d 613 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1971
    However, , , cited by plaintiffs for the proposition that uncontradicted evidence must be accepted as true, inapplicable to the case at bar.
  • Brumfield v. Fisher 235 So. 2d 145 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
  • Sylvester v. Liberty Mutual Insurance 234 So. 2d 754 La. 1970
  • Lorio v. Aetna Insurance Company 232 So. 2d 490 La. 1970
  • Sarvaunt v. New Hampshire Insurance 220 So. 2d 120 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
  • Hollier v. Broussard 220 So. 2d 175 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1969