Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Bickham v. Goings, 460 So. 2d 646.

14 citing documents.

Wheat v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. 583 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
Breeden v. Valencia, Inc. 557 So. 2d 302 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
App. 1st Cir.1986), (La.App.
Berthold v. State Farm Insurance Companies 545 So. 2d 688 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
In order for the trial judge to grant a motion, notwithstanding the verdict, the evidence must point “so strongly and overwhelmingly in favor of moving party that reasonable men could not arrive at a contrary verdict on the facts at issue.” (La.App.
Carlin v. Blanchard 537 So. 2d 303 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
Carlsen v. Mehaffey & Daigle, Inc. 519 So. 2d 1187 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
Recent jurisprudence has held that the proper standard of review of judgments notwithstanding the verdict under La.Code Civ.Pro., art. 1811, is whether the evidence points so strongly and overwhelmingly in favor of the moving party that reasonable men could not arrive at a contrary verdict on the facts at issue, (La.App.
Dept. of Transp. & Development v. Ford 520 So. 2d 774 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
Friedrichs v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. 496 So. 2d 496 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Stafford v. Unsell 492 So. 2d 94 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
1st Cir.1985), writ denied, (La.App.
Scott v. Hosp. Service Dist. No. 1 484 So. 2d 168 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
Nix v. Brasly 489 So. 2d 1038 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Fernandez v. General Motors Corp. 478 So. 2d 999 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Robertson v. Penn 472 So. 2d 927 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Frank Bickham, Jr. and Frank Bickham, Sr. v. Timothy H. Goings, et al., (La.
Menard v. King 469 So. 2d 15 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Bickham v. Goings 462 So. 2d 1246 La. 1985