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.

  • Pike v. Stephens Imports, Inc. 448 So. 2d 738 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
    Stephens next contends that plaintiff is not entitled to recover damages "for his inconvenience, loss of use, aggravation, delay and mental anguish" in a "breach of contract" action involving no tortious conduct.
  • Hebert v. Neyrey 445 So. 2d 1165 La. 1984
    [4] In Meador v. Toyota of Jefferson, Inc., we held that non-pecuniary damages were recoverable under La.C.C.
  • Childers v. Davis 444 So. 2d 692 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    In support of his contentions relative to damages for aggravation, distress and inconvenience, Mr. Davis cites Meador v. Toyota of Jefferson, Inc.
  • Caubarreaux v. Hines 442 So. 2d 898 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
    Art. 1934(3); Meador v. Toyota of Jefferson, Inc.
  • Smith v. Castro Bros. Corp. 443 So. 2d 660 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
    The landlord also argues that a tenant cannot recover mental anguish damages, citing Meador v. Toyota of Jefferson, Inc., a redhibition case.
  • State v. Alleman 439 So. 2d 418 La. 1983
    Meador v. Toyota of Jefferson Inc., *420 Comment, Damages Ex Contractu, 48 Tul.L.Rev.
  • Franklin v. Able Moving & Storage Co., Inc. 439 So. 2d 489 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    Meador v. Toyota of Jefferson, Inc.
  • Hubbard v. General Motors Corp. 438 So. 2d 671 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
    Typical of the cases are Meador v. Toyota of Jefferson, Inc., (La.App.
  • McManus v. Galaxy Carpet Mills, Inc. 433 So. 2d 854 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
    The majority in this matter resolves that issue in favor of plaintiff McManus on the basis of the analysis and exposition of law set forth in Meador v. Toyota of Jefferson, Inc., and various cases which have construed it.
  • F & F TRANSFER, INC. v. Tardo 425 So. 2d 874 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
    Meador v. Toyota of Jefferson, Inc., app. other grounds
  • Hartner v. Executive Industries, Inc. 424 So. 2d 274 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    Meador v. Toyota of Jefferson, Inc.
  • Ducote v. Arnold 421 So. 2d 238 La. 1982
    I consider the award contrary to Meador v. Toyota of Jefferson, Inc.
  • Williamson v. Alewine 417 So. 2d 64 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
    See Meador v. Toyota of Jefferson, Inc., Martin v. AAA Brick Company, Inc., (La.App.
  • Guthrie v. Rudy Brown Builders, Inc. 416 So. 2d 590 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1982
    The claim of the Guthries and Ragusas for mental anguish was not allowed by Judge Eason who cited the Supreme Court decision in Meador v. Toyota of Jefferson, Inc., to support his denial.
  • Ducote v. Arnold 416 So. 2d 180 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
    Defendant asserts it was error to award non-pecuniary damages, citing Meador v. Toyota of Jefferson, Inc., where damages were denied because of undue delay to repair a car.
  • Vick v. National Airlines, Inc. 409 So. 2d 383 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
    Art. 1934(3); Meador v. Toyota of Jefferson, Inc., (La.
  • Rogers v. Nelson Dodge, Inc. 407 So. 2d 443 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
    DAMAGES The damages recoverable for a breach of a service contract were set forth by the Supreme Court in the case of Meador v. Toyota of Jefferson, Inc., , 435 and 437 (La.1976): "Generally, 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....
  • Banner Chevrolet, Inc. v. Kelt 402 So. 2d 747 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
  • Lehn v. Clearview Dodge Sales, Inc. 400 So. 2d 317 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
    Accordingly, because we conclude plaintiff's judgment is in essence a reduction of the price, in support of its argument that non-pecuniary *321 damages are not permissible in an action for a rescission of the sale of a motor vehicle has no application to our case.
  • Leach v. Freeman 395 So. 2d 440 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
    Our Supreme Court in Meador v. Toyota of Jefferson, Inc., held that: "...
  • Philippe v. Browning Arms Co. 395 So. 2d 310 La. 1981
    Meador v. Toyota of Jefferson, Inc.
  • Morris v. Deluxe Check Printers, Inc. 395 So. 2d 927 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1981
    Meador v. Toyota of Jefferson, Inc.
  • Wallace v. Ford Motor Co. 395 So. 2d 884 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
  • Schreck v. One Hour Martinizing, Inc. 394 So. 2d 838 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
  • DeBlieux v. Arkla Industries, Inc. 390 So. 2d 233 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
    Our Supreme Court specifically dealt with the issue of the recovery of damages for inconvenience, mental anguish, etc. in a contract case in Meador v. Toyota of Jefferson, Inc.
  • Paul v. Ford Motor Co. 392 So. 2d 704 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
    Meador v. Toyota of Jefferson, Inc., (La.
  • Cobb v. Coleman Oldsmobile, Inc. 393 So. 2d 402 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    1st Cir. 1977); Meador v. Toyota of Jefferson, Inc.
  • Koncinsky v. Smith 390 So. 2d 1377 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
    Moreover, under Meador v. Toyota of Jefferson, Inc., these damages are not awardable in an action for breach of this type of contract.
  • Stipelcovich v. Mike Persia Chevrolet Co. 391 So. 2d 582 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
    Meador v. Toyota of Jefferson, Inc., (La.
  • Elliott v. Louisiana Intrastate Gas Corp. 390 So. 2d 571 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
    This is illustrated by our Supreme Court in the case of Meador v. Toyota of Jefferson, Inc., wherein it is stated: "...
  • Gele v. Markey 387 So. 2d 1162 La. 1980
    The court of appeal, , affirmed the award of property damages, but set aside the award for emotional distress because the lease did not have intellectual enjoyment as its principal purpose, citing Meador v. Toyota of Jefferson, Inc.
  • Martin v. AAA Brick Co., Inc. 386 So. 2d 987 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
    Said article was interpreted by our Supreme Court in Meador v. Toyota of Jefferson, Inc., as follows: "...
  • Coddington v. Stephens Imports, Inc. 383 So. 2d 416 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
    Appellant refers us to the case of Meador v. Toyota of Jefferson, Inc., as authority for the principle that inconvenience resulting from tardy repairs is not recoverable as damages.
  • Seymore v. LA. SOIL STABILIZATION CO., INC. 381 So. 2d 571 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1980
    These circumstances are more akin to the repair of a defective automobile, as in Meador v. Toyota of Jefferson, Inc., than to creation or building of a distinctive and individually designed residence as in Whitener, supra, or as in Jack, supra.
  • Smith v. Andrepont 378 So. 2d 479 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    Relative to the $500.00 award for inconvenience and mental stress, Meador v. Toyota of Jefferson, Inc., (La.
  • Bowes v. Fox-Stanley Photo Products, Inc. 379 So. 2d 844 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
    [5] In Meador v. Toyota of Jefferson, Inc., the Supreme Court denied recovery of non-pecuniary damages for the loss of intellectual enjoyment.
  • Ostrowe v. Darensbourg 377 So. 2d 1201 La. 1979
    Relying on this Court's decision in Meador v. Toyota of Jefferson, Inc., the Court of Appeal found that the principal object of the contract was the utility, gratification and satisfaction of plaintiff's physical need for shelter and a place to live.
  • Riche v. Krestview Mobile Homes, Inc. 375 So. 2d 133 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
    Meador v. Toyota of Jefferson, Inc., Laughlin v. Fiat Distributors, Inc., (La.
  • Gele v. Markey 379 So. 2d 763 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1979
    [2] See Civil Code Article 1934; Meador v. Toyota of Jefferson, Inc., La., .
  • Ostrowe v. Darensbourg 369 So. 2d 1156 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    Where the contract has for its object the gratification of some intellectual enjoyment, whether in religion, morality or taste, or some convenience or other legal gratification, although these are not appreciated in money by the parties, yet damages are due for their breach; * * * ” In the recent case of Meador v. Toyota of Jefferson, Inc., an action in which damages were sought for mental pain and anguish resulting from failure to timely repair an automobile, the Supreme Court interpreted Artic
  • Laughlin v. Fiat Distributors, Inc. 368 So. 2d 742 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
    " In Meador v. Toyota of Jefferson, Inc., our Supreme Court analyzed the origin of this section, and interpreted it as follows: " 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 recove
  • Robertson v. Jimmy Walker Chrysler-Plymouth 368 So. 2d 747 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
    Despite this attempt to distinguish his present situation from that present in Meador v. Toyota of Jefferson, Inc., we feel constrained by the language of the Louisiana Supreme Court in that leading decision.
  • Clinkscales v. Superior Pontiac-GMC, Inc. 365 So. 2d 895 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
    See Meador v. Toyota of Jefferson, Inc., La., .
  • Boisdore v. International City Bank & Trust Co. 361 So. 2d 925 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
    The appellee's reliance on Meador v. Toyota of Jefferson, Inc., La., (1976) is wholly misplaced.
  • Muller v. AK Durnin Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc. 361 So. 2d 1257 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
    With regard to the judgment of the trial court which awarded plaintiff the sum of $500 for inconvenience, the decision of the Supreme Court in Meador v. Toyota of Jefferson, Inc., is dispositive of the matter.
  • Whitener v. Clark 356 So. 2d 1094 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1978
    4th Cir. 1977), a case on a residential building contract directly in point, citing Meador v. Toyota of Jefferson, Inc.
  • Wheat v. Boutte Auto Sales 355 So. 2d 611 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
    Damages for aggravation, distress and inconvenience are not recoverable; Meador v. Toyota of Jefferson, Inc., La.1976, .
  • Barron v. Allstate Insurance 358 So. 2d 663 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
    1 Cir. 1972), in which appellee takes misguided solace, quoted its language *665 in Meador v. Toyota of Jefferson, Inc., which states: “We also deem it worth noting, however fundamental, that unlike the rule which we are required by the Civil Code to apply in this action for breach of contract, damages for mental anguish, aggravation, distress and inconvenience, are recoverable in an action sounding in tort.” In the DiGiova
  • Burns v. Lamar-Lane Chevrolet, Inc. 354 So. 2d 620 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    Art. 1934 was so interpreted by our Supreme Court in Meador v. Toyota of Jefferson, Inc.
  • Alexander v. Qwik Change Car Center, Inc. 352 So. 2d 188 La. 1977
    2769, 1934; Meador v. Toyota of Jefferson, Inc., La., (1976); 23 Loy.L.Rev.