DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Meador v. Toyota of Jefferson, Inc., 332 So. 2d 433.

105 citing documents.

  • New Era Dev. Corp. v. Robert 263 So. 3d 497 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
    See Meador v. Toyota of Jefferson, Inc ., , 438 (La.
  • Brady v. Pirner 261 So. 3d 867 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
    See Meador v. Toyota of Jefferson, Inc. , , 436 (La.
  • LAD Services of Louisiana, L.L.C. v. Superior Derrick Services, LLC 167 So. 3d 746 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    We also note that the Louisiana Supreme Court has stated that, “[g]enerally, recovery for damages upon the breach of a contract is limited to the loss a person has sustained or the profit of which he has been deprived.” Meador v. Toyota of Jefferson, Inc., -35 (La.1976).
  • Blair v. Bad Boy Inc. 137 So. 3d 1223 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
    2 Cir. 5/16/12), , after reviewing the Revision Comments to Art. 1998 and the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Art. 1998 in Young v. Ford Motor Co., supra, we concluded that the legislature chose to preserve the substance of source Art. 1934(3) as interpreted in Meador v. Toyota of Jefferson, Inc., thereby permitting recovery of nonpecuniary damages in situations where nonpecuniary interests constitute at least one of the significant interests that the obligee intended to gratify.
  • Jones v. Winnebago Industries, Inc. 92 So. 3d 1113 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
    As interpreted in Meador v. Toyota of Jefferson, Inc., former La.
  • Miller v. Ford Motor Co. 815 So. 2d 997 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
  • Thomas v. Desire Community Housing Corp. 773 So. 2d 755 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
    Relying on Meador v. Toyota of Jefferson, Inc., the Court held the homeowners were not entitled to damages for mental anguish from the contractor who breached the agreement.
  • Sanders v. Zeagler 686 So. 2d 819 La. 1997
  • Louisiana Farms v. LA. Dept. of Wildlife 685 So. 2d 1086 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
    1980); Meador v. Toyota Of Jefferson, Inc.
  • Ganheart v. Executive House Apartments 671 So. 2d 525 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
    Partially because of the Supreme Court's decision in Meador v. Toyota of Jefferson, Inc., [4] the legislature, in 1984, enacted Civil Code article 1998.
  • Bass v. Coupel 671 So. 2d 344 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
    See Meador v. Toyota of Jefferson, Inc.
  • Stonecipher v. Mitchell 655 So. 2d 1381 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
    See, Meador v. Toyota of Jefferson, Inc., Gary P. Graphia, Comment, Nonpecuniary Damages: A Guide to Damage Awards Under Louisiana Civil Code Article 1998, 50 La.L.Rev.
  • LeBlanc v. Mercedes-Benz of North America 633 So. 2d 399 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
    NOTES [1] Meador v. Toyota of Jefferson, Inc.
  • Henderson v. Domingue 626 So. 2d 555 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
    Secondly, the Supreme Court in Meador v. Toyota of Jefferson, Inc., (La.
  • Young v. Ford Motor Co., Inc. 595 So. 2d 1123 La. 1992
    (the terminology under Meador v. *1125 Toyota of Jefferson, Inc., ).
  • Holloway v. Gulf Motors, Inc. 588 So. 2d 1322 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
  • Young v. FORD MOTOR CO., INC. 574 So. 2d 557 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1991
    art. 1934(3), as interpreted in Meador v. Toyota of Jefferson, Inc., "allows recovery of damages for nonpecuniary losses only for breach of a contract which has `intellectual enjoyment' as its principal or exclusive purpose".
  • CLB Enterprises, Inc. v. Kittok 575 So. 2d 834 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
    In Meador v. Toyota of Jefferson, Inc., the Louisiana Supreme Court interpreted LSA-C.C.
  • Blue v. Schoen 556 So. 2d 1364 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1990
    art. 1998; Meador v. Toyota of Jefferson, Inc.
  • Lejeune v. Rayne Branch Hosp. 556 So. 2d 559 La. 1990
    NOTES [1] Meador v. Toyota of Jefferson, Inc., (La.
  • Don Smart & Assoc. v. Lanier Bus. Prod. 551 So. 2d 665 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
    As stated in Meador v. Toyota of Jefferson, Inc., Where an object, or the exclusive object, of a contract, is physical gratification (or anything other than intellectual gratification) nonpecuniary damages as a consequence of nonfulfillment of that object are not recoverable.
  • Creger v. Robertson 542 So. 2d 1090 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
    In Meador v. Toyota of Jefferson, Inc., the Supreme Court found that where an object, or the exclusive object, of a contract is physical gratification (or anything other than intellectual gratification), nonpecuniary damages as a consequence of nonfulfillment of that object are not recoverable.
  • Ditcharo v. Stepanek 538 So. 2d 309 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
    As interpreted by the Supreme Court in Meador v. Toyota of Jefferson, Inc., Article 1934 allowed recovery of damages for nonpecuniary losses only for breach of a contract that had "intellectual enjoyment" as its principal or exclusive purpose.
  • Castigliola v. Dept. of Community Dev. Programs 538 So. 2d 1139 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
    In addition, INA argues that the plaintiff cannot recover damages for any mental anguish or emotional trauma because the object of the contract was not intellectual gratification, citing Meador v. Toyota of Jefferson, Inc.
  • Alarcon v. Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co. 538 So. 2d 696 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
    art. 1998 (formerly article 1934(3)); Meador v. Toyota of Jefferson, Inc.
  • Bishop v. Callais 533 So. 2d 121 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
    Meador v. Toyota of Jefferson, Inc.
  • Leleux v. Morrow's Sports Center, Inc. 527 So. 2d 519 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
    Meador v. Toyota of Jefferson, Inc.
  • Vercher v. Ford Motor Co. 527 So. 2d 995 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
    This circuit continues to follow the rule of Meador v. Toyota of Jefferson, Inc., that mental anguish and humiliation is not recoverable in this type of action.
  • Voitier v. Antique Art Gallery 524 So. 2d 80 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
    Meador v. Toyota of Jefferson, Inc., and McManus v. Galaxy Carpet Mills, Inc., (La.App.
  • Hostetler v. W. Gray & Co., Inc. 523 So. 2d 1359 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
    Meador v. Toyota of Jefferson, Inc., B & B (La.App.
  • Robert v. Bayou Bernard Marine, Inc. 514 So. 2d 540 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
    The trial judge awarded $5,000.00 to Robert for "frustration, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of use, etc." AMF argues that this was error because Robert made no showing that the fishing boat was for intellectual enjoyment, citing Meador v. Toyota of Jefferson, Inc., (La.
  • Morgan v. American Fire and Indem. Co. 506 So. 2d 785 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
    art. 1934(3); Meador v. Toyota of Jefferson, Inc.
  • Johnson v. Eagle Steel Structures 497 So. 2d 54 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    Meador v. Toyota of Jefferson, Inc., Martin v. AAA Brick Co., Inc., (La.App.
  • LaFleur v. John Deere Co. 491 So. 2d 624 La. 1986
    Code art. 1934(3) and the interpretation of that article by this Court in Meador v. Toyota of Jefferson, Inc., bar the recovery of mental anguish damages in this case (one which they contend is in contract) since the contract does not have as its principal or exclusive object "the gratification of some intellectual enjoyment."
  • Buddy's Tastee No. 1, Inc. v. Tastee Donuts, Inc. 483 So. 2d 1321 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
    Meador v. Toyota of Jefferson, Inc.
  • Fontenot v. F. Hollier & Sons 478 So. 2d 1379 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
    Art. 2520 and Meador v. Toyota of Jefferson, Inc.
  • Haggerty v. March 480 So. 2d 1064 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
    See Meador v. Toyota of Jefferson, Inc., (La.App.
  • Diodene v. Blueridge, Inc. 480 So. 2d 446 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    art. 1934(3) (allowing non-pecuniary damages for breach of contract only if the principal object of the contract is gratification of intellectual enjoyment) that was initiated in Meador v. Toyota of Jefferson, Inc., had been broadened.
  • Canale v. Gus Mayer, Co. 481 So. 2d 170 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    We believe that Article 1934(3), as interpreted in Meador v. Toyota of Jefferson, Inc., does not allow recovery of the damages sought by Mrs. Canale.
  • Guitreau v. Juneau 479 So. 2d 431 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    As to the nonpecuniary damages awarded by the trial court, which he granted based on his appreciation of an erosion of Meador v. Toyota of Jefferson, Inc., [5] we find that plaintiffs are indeed entitled to damages for mental distress, inconvenience, and aggravation under the facts of this case, but for different reasons.
  • Orgeron v. Dobkowski 476 So. 2d 458 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    Meador v. Toyota of Jefferson, Inc.
  • Abrams v. Dinh 471 So. 2d 994 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    4th Cir.1975), aff'd, Simon, 422 So.2d at 1326 .
  • Breland v. Louisiana Hospital Services, Inc. 468 So. 2d 1215 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    art. 1934; Meador v. Toyota of Jefferson, Inc., Hartner v. Executive Industries, Inc., (La.App.
  • Schroeder v. DiPascal Cabinet Co., Inc. 467 So. 2d 1380 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
    [1] In Meador v. Toyota of Jefferson, Inc., the Louisiana Supreme Court noted that in certain limited circumstances, recovery may also be allowed for non-pecuniary damages under LSA-C.C.
  • B & B Cut Stone Co., Inc. v. Resneck 465 So. 2d 851 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
    the plaintiff sought damages for aggravation, distress and inconvenience from a repairman who unnecessarily and excessively delayed completion of repair of her vehicle, a 1971 Toyota.
  • Free v. Franklin Guest Home, Inc. 463 So. 2d 865 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
    In Meador v. Toyota of Jefferson, Inc., the Louisiana Supreme Court interpreted this article to mean that non-pecuniary damages are recoverable for nonfulfillment of an intellectual object of a contract only when that object is a principal or exclusive object of the contract.
  • Bourne v. Rein Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc. 463 So. 2d 1356 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    Chrysler relies on Meador v. Toyota of Jefferson, Inc., as authority for its premise that because the record is devoid of any suggestion that Ms. Bourne "purchased the vehicle for any type of intellectual enjoyment" the lower court improperly awarded her non-pecuniary damages in her quanti minoris action based on C.C.
  • DeCuir v. Sam Broussard, Inc. 459 So. 2d 1375 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
    The Supreme Court held in Meador v. Toyota of Jefferson, Inc., that nonpecuniary damages are not recoverable for breach of contract, unless intellectual gratification is the principal cause of the contract.
  • Robertson v. Coleman Oldsmobile, Inc. 451 So. 2d 1323 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    Meador v. Toyota of Jefferson, Inc., (La.
  • Long v. Panther Airboat Corp. 453 So. 2d 304 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    Meador v. Toyota of Jefferson, Inc., and Robertson v. Coleman Oldsmobile, Inc., (La.App.