DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Jordan v. Travelers Insurance Company, 245 So. 2d 151.

446 citing documents.

  • NAT. ROOFING & SIDING CO. v. Gulf Coast Oil Co. 422 So. 2d 204 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
    Also pertinent are the principles that where there is a legal right to recovery but damages cannot be exactly estimated the trial court has reasonable discretion to assess such damages based on the facts and circumstances of the case, , (1971), and if damages cannot be precisely and mathematically determined the trial judge is vested with reasonable discretion in making awards for damage.
  • Lindstrom v. Arnold 421 So. 2d 1178 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
    (1971); Loetzerich v. Texas Pacific-Missouri Pac.
  • Magnolia Const. Co., Inc. v. Causey 421 So. 2d 990 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
    Mr. Causey's testimony can be summed up as follows: Gross Profit $25,975 (3462 feet of boring done by Glen Frost according to Magnolia's petition) Expenses 6,750 ($400 per day wages and taxes for 4 workers plus $50 per day fuel and rent for boring machines, or a total of $450 per day, times 15 days of work) Net Profit $19,200 , (1971), the Louisiana Supreme Court held: "...
  • Bankers & Shippers Insurance Co. of New York v. Holiday Rambler Corp. 420 So. 2d 1350 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
  • Thornton v. Pedersen 421 So. 2d 465 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
  • Nobile v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. 419 So. 2d 35 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    2nd Cir., 1979) , (1971).
  • Mooney v. French Market Homestead 416 So. 2d 603 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    Justice Tate summarized the several judicial formulations of burden of proof in civil cases and concluded: In Louisiana tort eases, the plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence both the negligence of the defendant and the damages caused by the latter’s fault; but proof need be only by a
  • Wyman v. West Jefferson General Hospital 416 So. 2d 606 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    Gradney v. Vancouver Plywood Co., Inc.
  • Merrell v. State, Through Dept. of Transp. 415 So. 2d 660 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
    (1971); Boudreaux v. American Insurance Company, 262 La.
  • Schouest v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., Inc. 411 So. 2d 1042 La. 1982
    Co., , (1971), writ denied
  • Furtado v. Alton Ochsner Medical Foundation 413 So. 2d 528 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
    Co., , (1971); Naquin v. Marquette Cas.
  • Faulk v. Cagle Supply, Inc. 412 So. 2d 1020 La. 1982
    -1007 , (1971) we held that: “One injured through the fault of another is entitled to full indemnification for the damages caused thereby.
  • Green v. Farmers Ins. Co. 412 So. 2d 1136 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
  • Thames v. Zerangue 411 So. 2d 17 La. 1982
    -1007 , (1971), we held that: "One injured through the fault of another is entitled to full indemnification for the damages caused thereby.
  • Wilson v. MFA SEC. Service Co. 410 So. 2d 1177 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
  • Blue Ridge Insurance v. Belle Alliance Homes, Inc. 408 So. 2d 417 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    ny of Mrs. Day and the photographs of the burning house, was sufficient to prove the breaker box was the origin of the fire.” The court then stated the applicable standard of proof, even in cases involving circumstantial evidence, is that when taken as a whole, the evidence must show the fact or causation sought to be proved is more probable than not, , (1971).
  • Porter v. Johnson 408 So. 2d 961 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1981
  • Arnett v. Trace Development Corp. 407 So. 2d 471 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    1 , (1971), the court stated: “Proof by direct or circumstantial evidence is sufficient to constitute a preponderance, when, taking the evidence as a whole, such proof shows that the fact or causation sought to be proved is more probable than not.” The surveyor’s testimony as to ownership of the property w
  • Walton v. William Wolf Baking Co., Inc. 406 So. 2d 168 La. 1981
  • Bond v. Commercial Union Assur. Co. 407 So. 2d 401 La. 1981
  • Augustine v. Dickenson 406 So. 2d 306 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
    (1971); Derouen v. Department of Transportation *309 and Development, (La.App.
  • Rogers v. Nelson Dodge, Inc. 407 So. 2d 443 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
    (1971), the Supreme Court stated as follows: "Where there is a legal right to recovery but the damages cannot be exactly estimated, the courts have reasonable discretion to assess same based upon all the facts and circumstances of the case.
  • Gremillion v. Babst Services, Inc. 405 So. 2d 675 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    (1971); Hebert v. Your Food Processing & Warehouse, Inc., 248 La.
  • Boswell v. John Deere Co. 405 So. 2d 576 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    (1971); Naquin v. Marquette Casualty Company, 244 La.
  • Cormier v. Foremost Ins. Co. 405 So. 2d 610 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
    (1971); Perkins v. Texas & New Orleans Railroad Company, 243 La.
  • DeBattista v. Argonaut-Southwest Ins. Co. 403 So. 2d 26 La. 1981
    Co., , (1971); Naquin v. Marquette Cas.
  • Swanson v. Estate of Augusta 403 So. 2d 118 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
    (1971); Perkins v. Texas & New Orleans Railroad Company, 243 La.
  • Curtis v. Curtis 403 So. 2d 56 La. 1981
  • Brasseaux v. Stand-By Corp. 402 So. 2d 140 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    As to the claim for loss of future wages or loss of earning capacity, our Supreme Court in the case of Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., held: "But the full indemnification to which an injured party is entitled under Article 2315 ( , (1971)) includes damages for decreased earning capacity which is determined by deducting plaintiff's earning ability after the injury from his earning ability immediately prior to the injury rather than by deducting his income after the injury from his income prior
  • Cushman v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. 401 So. 2d 477 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1981
    (1971), our supreme court recognized a plaintiff's right to recover medical expenses though the extent and cost of them could not be established with certainty.
  • Ainsworth v. State Farm Auto. Ins. Co. 399 So. 2d 1242 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
    (1971) the Louisiana Supreme Court considered the standard of proof with respect to loss of earnings.
  • Rayfield ex rel. Rayfield v. City of New Orleans 398 So. 2d 1243 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    (1971); Herbert v. Your Food Processing & Warehouse, Inc., 248 La.
  • Gorbach v. Buck Kreihs Co. 398 So. 2d 1267 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
  • Bize v. Boyer 402 So. 2d 110 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
  • Vega v. State Farm Auto. Ins. Co. 401 So. 2d 368 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    the court held that a claim for loss of earnings need not be proved with mathematical certainty, but only by such proof as reasonably establishes the claim.
  • Benjamin v. United States Steel Corp. 396 So. 2d 332 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    721 , (1972), on rehearing, Justice Tate’s review of the jurisprudence with regard to the issue of res ipsa loquitur contains portions which so aptly apply to the instant case that they require no further comment: “ , (1971), we summarized the several judicial formulations of this burden of proof in civil cases and concluded: ‘In describing this burden of proof, the courts sometimes speak of proof to a “reasonable certainty” or to ‘legal certainty’; or of proof by evidence which is of ‘greater w
  • Smith v. Town of Logansport 395 So. 2d 888 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1981
  • Ewing and Salter, Inc. v. Gafner Automotive & MacHine Inc. 392 So. 2d 762 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
    (1971) and cases cited there.
  • Roper v. Dailey 393 So. 2d 85 La. 1981
  • Emerson v. Empire Fire & Marine Ins. Co. 393 So. 2d 691 La. 1981
  • Maryland Casualty Co. v. Saunders 394 So. 2d 1256 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    721 , (1972), on rehearing, the eminent civilian scholar and member of the bench of the Louisiana Supreme Court, Justice Tate, reviewed the jurisprudence on the issue of res ipsa loquitur as applied to fire cases: “ , (1971), we summarized the several judicial formulations of this burden of proof in civil cases and concluded: ‘In describing this burden of proof, the courts sometimes speak of proof to a “reasonable certainty” or to “legal certainty”; or of proof by evidence which is of “greater w
  • Derouen v. Dept. of Transp. & Development 392 So. 2d 765 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
  • Lemoine v. Hebert 395 So. 2d 353 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
  • Koncinsky v. Smith 390 So. 2d 1377 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
  • Litton v. Home Indemnity Co. 391 So. 2d 541 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    Addressing ourselves to specification of error (1), , (1971) and conclude that plaintiff has sustained his burden of proof.
  • Hoover v. State 393 So. 2d 187 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
  • Gasquet v. Commercial Union Ins. Co. 391 So. 2d 466 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
  • Erdey v. Steib 392 So. 2d 131 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
  • Latter & Blum, Inc. v. Richmond 388 So. 2d 368 La. 1980
  • Klumpp v. Colonial Pipeline Co. 389 So. 2d 457 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980