Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Miller v. Thomas, 246 So. 2d 16.

152 citing documents.

Barbay v. Parish of East Baton Rouge 343 So. 2d 235 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
art. 1934(3) in part provides: “In the assessment of damages under this rule, as well as in cases of offenses, quasi offenses, and quasi contracts, much discretion must be left to the judge or jury * * * » , (1971), the Supreme Court of this state, after reviewing the jurisprudence said: “From these decisions, two principles emerge: (1) To modify the amount of an award for general damages, an appellate court must find that the trial judge or jury has abused the ‘much discretion’ accorded by the
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc. 341 So. 2d 332 La. 1977
Guillot v. Travelers Indem. Co. 338 So. 2d 334 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
Ponville v. Travelers Ins. Co. 340 So. 2d 331 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
Article 1934(3); , (1971)
Aymond v. STATE, THROUGH DEPT. OF HIGHWAYS 333 So. 2d 383 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
(1971), the Supreme Court, quoting from Ballard v. National *391 Indemnity Company of Omaha, Neb., 246 La.
Ardoin v. STATE, THROUGH DEPT. OF HIGHWAYS 333 So. 2d 412 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
Reed v. West Bros. of Eunice, L.A., Inc. 338 So. 2d 324 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
Molaison v. WEST BROS. OF THIBODAUX, LA. INC. 338 So. 2d 726 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
Weiland v. King, La., (1973); , (1971).
Macaluso v. Populis 339 So. 2d 386 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
239 , (1963), the Supreme Court, , (1971), said: “From these decisions, two principles emerge: (1) To modify the amount of an award for general damages, an appellate court must find that the trial judge or jury has abused the ‘much discretion’ accorded by the codal provision; (2) The awards in other cases serve only as an aid in dete
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc. 330 So. 2d 649 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
(1971), the court reviewed the then jurisprudence and succinctly stated the rule of appellate review of quantum as follows: "From these decisions, two principles emerge: (1) To modify the amount of an award for general damages, an appellate court must find that the trial judge or jury has abused the `mu
Ashley v. Roberts 331 So. 2d 539 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
2d 127 ; , , and authorities therein cited.
Martin v. Roberts 331 So. 2d 541 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
Lomenick v. Schoeffler, 250 La.
Williams v. Harvey 328 So. 2d 901 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1976
Williams v. Harvey 328 So. 2d 900 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
The full force and effect of this article’s , 246 So.
Gonzales v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc. 326 So. 2d 486 La. 1976
Simmons v. Beauregard Parish School Board 315 So. 2d 883 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
Burrows v. Louisiana State Department of Highways 319 So. 2d 867 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
C. art. 1934; , (1971); Gaspard v. LeMaire, 245 La.
Followed Glazer v. Louisiana Trailer Sales, Inc. 313 So. 2d 266 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1975
However, , (1971) wherein our Supreme Court stated: "(1) To modify the amount of an award for general damages, an appellate court must find that the trial judge or jury has abused the "much discretion" accorded by the codal provision; (2) The awards in other cases serve only as an aid in determining whether th
Ellis v. Coleman 309 So. 2d 716 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1975
Armstead v. CENTRAL LA. ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC. 308 So. 2d 870 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
art. 1934; Spillers v. Montgomery Ward & Company, Inc., , (1971).
Allen v. Riley Mobile Home Sales, Inc. 307 So. 2d 773 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
Fowler v. Gulf Insurance Company 306 So. 2d 406 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
art. 1934; , (1971); Gaspard v. LeMaire, 245 La.
Green v. Clark 306 So. 2d 396 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1975
(1971), to the record in this case compels us to conclude that there was no abuse of discretion by the trial judge in awarding Mrs. Green $2,000.00 for the injuries she sustained.
Johnson v. Ceaser 304 So. 2d 855 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1974
Moore v. Mouledous 305 So. 2d 717 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
(1971) our Supreme Court stated the rule of appellate review of quantum of damages as follows: “From these decisions, two principles emerge: (1) To modify the amount of an award for general damages, an appellate court must find that the trial judge or jury has abused the ‘much discretion’ accorded b
Anderson v. Welding Testing Laboratory, Inc. 304 So. 2d 351 La. 1974
1973); , (1971); Lomenick v. Schoeffler, *353 250 La.
Miller v. Travelers Insurance Company 303 So. 2d 924 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1974
art. 1934; , (1971); Gaspard v. LeMaire, 245 La.
Wiley v. Travelers Insurance Company 300 So. 2d 555 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1974
art. 1934; , (1971); Gaspard v. LeMaire, 245 La.
Smith v. Manchester Insurance & Indemnity Co. 299 So. 2d 517 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1974
Ct.); , ; Lomenick v. Schoeffler, 250 La.
Taylor v. Rome 303 So. 2d 844 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
Alexander v. Mid-South Sweeping Service, Inc. 303 So. 2d 268 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
959 , (1967); , (1971); (La.
Joseph v. Miranda 301 So. 2d 391 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1974
(1971), we cannot conclude that the awards are excessive or that the trial judge violated the mandate of LSA-R.C.C.
Gianakis v. Mayen 301 So. 2d 413 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1974
* * *" , (1971); Lomenick v. Schoeffler, 250 La.
Bane v. White 301 So. 2d 665 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
See: ; ; (La.App., 4th Cir., 1970; amended , [1971]).
Watts v. Town of Homer 301 So. 2d 729 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1974
Dewese v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company 295 So. 2d 574 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1974
art. 1934; , (1971); Gaspard v. LeMaire, 245 La.
Claiborne v. Southern Farm Bureau Insurance 299 So. 2d 910 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
See: , (1971); Lomenick v. Schoeffler, 250 La.
South Texas Lloyds v. Guarantee Insurance Co. 299 So. 2d 395 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
See, also: , (1971); Lomenick v. Schoeffler, 250 La.
Doucet v. Werner 297 So. 2d 252 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
art. 1934; , (1971); Gaspard v. LeMaire, 245 La.
Revon v. American Guarantee & Liability Ins. Co. 296 So. 2d 257 La. 1974
Co., , (1971); Lomenick v. Schoeffler, 250 La.
Malone v. Yager 295 So. 2d 604 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
(1971); Lomenick v. Schoeffler, 250 La.
Mudd v. Travelers Indemnity Company 295 So. 2d 540 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1974
art. 1934; , (1971); Gaspard v. LeMaire, 245 La.
Collins v. Maryland Casualty Co. 294 So. 2d 561 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
In reviewing awards of quantum, , (1971): “From these decisions, two principles emerge: (1) To modify the amount of an award for general damages, an appellate court must find that the trial judge or jury has abused the 'much discretion’ accorded by the codal provision; (2) The awards in other cases serve only as an aid in determining wh
Succession of Butler 294 So. 2d 512 La. 1974
*516 (1971), we summarized the principle as follows: "From these decisions, two principles emerge: (1) To modify the amount of an award for general damages, an appellate court must find that the trial judge or jury has abused the `much discretion' accorded by the codal provision; (2) The awards in other
Spillers v. MONTGOMERY WARD & COMPANY, INC. 294 So. 2d 803 La. 1974
959 , (1967); , (1971); (1973); (1973).
Martin v. United Services Automobile Ass'n 293 So. 2d 274 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
(1971); Lomenick v. Schoeffler, 250 La.
Taft v. Gist 293 So. 2d 641 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1974
art. 1934; , (1971); Gaspard v. LeMaire, 245 La.
Molton v. Avrard 293 So. 2d 557 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
Titard v. Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Company 291 So. 2d 857 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1974
(1971); See also Ballard v. National Indemnity Co. of Omaha, Nebraska, supra.
Boutte v. Hargrove 290 So. 2d 319 La. 1974

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by