Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Miller v. Chicago Insurance Company, 320 So. 2d 134.

59 citing documents.

Rossignol v. Rose 378 So. 2d 196 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
Bland v. Government Employees Insurance 360 So. 2d 549 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
has offered a detailed commentary on the application of that law, and has attempted to rectify the considera *552 ble appellate confusion as to the application to appellate review.
Jackson v. Watson 360 So. 2d 582 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
Co., La., ; Miller v. Chicago Insurance Company, La., ; Bunge Corporation v. Emmons, La.App., ; Simmons v. Beauregard Parish School Board, La.App., ; Pate v. Crescent Motors Exchange, Inc., La.App., .
Lynch v. Derryberry 341 So. 2d 902 La. 1977
Fidelity & Guaranty Insurance Company v. Central Plumbing & Heating Company 339 So. 2d 904 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
Carroll v. Guillot 337 So. 2d 310 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc. 330 So. 2d 649 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
In Miller v. Chicago Insurance Company, La., (1975), our Supreme Court expressly overruled Parks *669 and held that the trial judge does have the authority to order a remittitur even in those cases where the jury award is one lump sum covering both general damages and special damages.
Luneau v. Walker Roemer Dairies, Inc. 332 So. 2d 319 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
As to the discovery of the new witness, the information contained in the application for writs creates serious doubt as to whether the testimony of this witness is relevant and material and as to whether it is merely cumulative.
Gordon v. General Motors Corp. 323 So. 2d 496 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
we are permitted to review only the award as it stands following the entering of the remittitur.