DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

152 citing documents.

  • Little v. Mississippi Chemical Express, Inc. 285 So. 2d 267 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1974
  • Redd v. Prevost 288 So. 2d 74 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1974
  • Thibeaux v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. 285 So. 2d 363 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1974
    App., ; , ; Lomenick v. Schoeffler, 250 La.
  • Thibodeaux v. Dixon 288 So. 2d 921 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
    art. 1934; , (1971); Gaspard v. LeMaire, 245 La.
  • O'Keefe v. Warner 288 So. 2d 911 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
    C. art. 1934; , (1971); Gaspard v. LeMaire, 245 La.
  • Walker v. Champion 288 So. 2d 44 La. 1973
  • Fox v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 288 So. 2d 42 La. 1973
    (1971); Lomenick v. Schoeffler, 250 La.
  • Haydel v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. 286 So. 2d 408 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
  • Gauthier v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 286 So. 2d 103 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
    (1971), the Supreme Court stated ( ): “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 c
  • Campbell v. Mack 285 So. 2d 882 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
    Under this rule the amount of damages assessed by the judge or jury should not be disturbed unless the appellate court’s examination of the facts reveals a clear abuse of the discretion vested in the lower court.” , , 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 a
  • Squyres v. Phillips 285 So. 2d 337 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1973
    (1971); Lomenick v. Schoeffler, 250 La.
  • Canter v. Koehring Company 283 So. 2d 716 La. 1973
    Civil Code Article 1934(3); , (1971).
  • Dohmann v. Richard 282 So. 2d 789 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1973
  • Freeman v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. 282 So. 2d 855 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
  • Ardoin v. Bordelon 284 So. 2d 117 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
  • Johnson v. Blanchard 283 So. 2d 513 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
    * * *’ (Italics ours) “ , (1971) stated that in Lomenick v. Schoeffler, supra, and the cases cited therein, ‘ * * * this Court undertook to reemphasize the codal provision in a series of pronouncements designed to make clear to the intermediate courts of appeal the vitality of the codal approach to the review of damage awards.’
  • Weiland v. King 281 So. 2d 688 La. 1973
    (1971); Lomenick v. Schoeffler, 250 La.
  • Borde v. Travelers Insurance Co. 281 So. 2d 797 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
  • Simmons v. Baton Rouge Coca-Cola Bottling Co., Ltd. 282 So. 2d 827 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
  • Cooksey v. Central Louisiana Electric Company, Inc. 279 So. 2d 242 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1973
    (1971); Brouillette v. State of Louisiana, through Department of Highways, (La.App.
  • Palmieri v. Frierson 275 So. 2d 214 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
    Art. 1934; , (1971); Gaspard v. LeMaire, 245 La.
  • Tamplain v. Collinswood Poultry Co. 279 So. 2d 277 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
    (1971), the Supreme Court stated that two principles of appellate review of quantum emerge from these cases: modification of a trial court judgment on general damages is limited to instances where the judge or jury has abused the “much discretion” conferred by the Civil Code, and the awards in other cas
  • Webb v. Liberty Mutual Insurance 278 So. 2d 577 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
    at page 19, summarized the law applicable to damages awarded by a trial judge as follows: “(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
  • Mayeux v. Mock 278 So. 2d 591 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
  • McLemore v. Sandel 277 So. 2d 703 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
  • Dubois v. Travelers Indemnity Co. 276 So. 2d 814 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
    959 , (1967); , (1971)], we should find substantial manifest error before we drastically increase the trial court’s award.
  • Centineo v. ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INCORPORATED 276 So. 2d 352 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1973
  • Brouillette v. State, Through Dept. of Highways 275 So. 2d 196 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1973
    963 , (1964); , (1971); (La.App.
  • Theriot v. Transit Casualty Company 265 So. 2d 845 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1972
    Art. 1934(3); , ; Lomenick v. Schoeffler, 250 La.
  • Duplechin v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company 265 So. 2d 787 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1972
  • Francis v. Lake Charles American Press 265 So. 2d 206 La. 1972
  • Triche v. Williams 264 So. 2d 659 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
    In applying the doctrine as set forth in the above cited cases, the Supreme Court, , , reinstated a $60,000.00 judgment of the lower court which had been reduced by the appellate court to $25,000.00 saying: “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
  • Maggio v. Nichols 259 So. 2d 658 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
    In applying the doctrine as set forth in the above cited cases, the Supreme Court, , , reinstated a $60,000 judgment of the Lower Court which had been reduced by the Appellate Court to $25,000 saying: “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 discr
  • Poston v. Firemen's Insurance Co. of Newark, NJ 256 So. 2d 700 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1972
  • Deville v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 258 So. 2d 694 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1972
  • Moore v. Triple Eight Cab Co. 259 So. 2d 396 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
  • Bournes v. Trivigne 257 So. 2d 700 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
  • LeBlanc v. Metal Locking of Louisiana, Inc. 258 So. 2d 683 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
    (1971), after citing LSA-C.C.
  • Cannon v. Stout 257 So. 2d 454 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
    In applying the doctrine as set forth in the above cited cases, the Supreme Court, , , reinstated a $60,000 judgment of the Lower Court which had been reduced by the Appellate Court to $25,000 saying: “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 discr
  • Dugas v. Southwest Construction Co. 257 So. 2d 159 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
  • Miller v. Rooks 256 So. 2d 499 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
  • Day v. Campbell-Grosjean Roofing & Sheet Metal Corp. 256 So. 2d 105 La. 1971
    353 , (1970), and quantum increased, , (1971).
  • Belson v. Subsurface Completion Service 253 So. 2d 686 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
    (1971) and the cases cited therein, which hold that in the assessment of damages much discretion must be left to the judge or jury, and the award should not be changed on appeal, in the absence of an abuse of discretion.
  • Riley v. Frantz 253 So. 2d 237 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1971
    * * *" (Italics ours) , (1971) stated that in Lomenick v. Schoeffler, supra, and the cases cited therein, "* * * this Court undertook to reemphasize the codal provision in a series of pronouncements designed to make clear to the intermediate courts of appeal the vitality of the codal approach to the review of damage awards."
  • Nuccio v. Fireman's Fund American Insurance Companies 250 So. 2d 802 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
    It is urged to us that we should not disturb that award, , (1971), explaining the application of Louisiana Civil Code art. 1934(3), together with the line of jurisprudence cited therein.
  • Keck v. Yocum 250 So. 2d 468 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
  • Joyner v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company 251 So. 2d 166 La. 1971
    (1971); Lomenick v. Schoeffler, 250 La.
  • Royer v. Travelers Indemnity Co. 251 So. 2d 116 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
    Assuming the position of dissenter on this point, I repeat a , (1971), “[A]n appellate court should not fix the amount of the award solely to maintain uniformity of awards, thus ignoring the prerogatives of the trial judge or jury in assessing awards.
  • Abadie v. Employers Group Insurance Co. 250 So. 2d 84 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
    In the case of John Miller, individually and on behalf of his minor daughter, Deborah Ann Miller v. Lionel J. Thomas et al., La., (1971), after citing article 1934(3) of the Louisiana Civil Code and the cases of Gaspard v. LeMaire, 245 La.
  • Oliver v. Signal Insurance Co. 248 So. 2d 588 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
    (1971), , at page 19, to-wit: “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 a