Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Cambridge Corner Corp. v. Menard, 525 So. 2d 527.

49 citing documents.

In Re: Marshall Legacy Foundation La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2024
9 between trustees[.]” In support of this argument, and Guidry v. Millers Cas.
Distinguished Marcile v. Dauzat 103 So. 3d 335 La. 2012
where this Court held an amendment to La.Code Civ.
Kelly v. Manuel 28 So. 3d 1015 La. 2010
Kelly v. Manuel 28 So. 3d 1015 La. 2010
Parfait v. Transocean Offshore, Inc. 992 So. 2d 465 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2007
1992) (preserving the plaintiffs right to a jury trial in a case in which the plaintiff asserts both a Jones Act and general maritime claim subsequent to his injury and the filing of his initial petition is procedural in nature because he had a right to a jury trial under federal law), (La.
Parfait v. Transocean Offshore, Inc. 950 So. 2d 8 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2007
r v. Rowan Cos., Inc., (preserving the plaintiff's right to a jury trial in a case in which the plaintiff asserts both a Jones Act and general maritime claim subsequent to his injury and the filing of his initial petition is procedural in nature because he had a right to a jury trial under federal law), (holding that an increase in the threshold jurisdictional amount to assert a right to a jury trial from $10,000 to $20,000 is a substantive change in the law).
Adams v. CSX Railroads 904 So. 2d 13 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
To support their argument, the plaintiffs rely on two Louisiana Supreme Court decisions, Cambridge Corner Corp., v. Menard, and Benoit v. Allstate Ins.
Gold, Weems, Bruser, Sues & Rundell v. Granger 870 So. 2d 562 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
Gold, Weems, Bruser, Sues & Rundell v. Tommie Mack Granger La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
Guidry v. Millers Cas. Ins. Co. 822 So. 2d 675 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
Benoit v. Allstate Ins. Co. 773 So. 2d 702 La. 2000
This court discussed the 1983
Benoit v. Allstate Ins. Co. 751 So. 2d 423 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
Hurst v. Louitt 745 So. 2d 687 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
Darbonne v. Reeves 744 So. 2d 47 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
the petition was filed prior to the 1987 amendment raising the jury trial limit from $10,000 to $20,000, but the plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend its petition to lower the amount prayed for after the effective date of the amendment.
Jamison v. Hilton 721 So. 2d 494 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
1 Cir. 4/30/96) ; , writ denied, 96-1511 (La.9/20/96); ; Sperandeo v. Denny's Inc., 96-328 (La.App.
In Re Gas Water Heater Prod. Litigation 697 So. 2d 341 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1997
to support their position that attorneys' fees must be added to determine the right to jury trial; however, that case can be clearly distinguished.
Blanchard v. City Parish of East Baton Rouge 674 So. 2d 317 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
13:5105 is substantive and should be applied prospectively only, (La.App.
Adams v. City of Baton Rouge 673 So. 2d 624 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
by reading that decision to mean that a statute providing a jury trial may not be applied to cases pending at the time the statute becomes effective.
Owens v. Liberty Lloyds Insurance Co. 672 So. 2d 1138 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
Cambridge Corner *1140 (La.
Tenpenny v. Ringuet 670 So. 2d 644 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
Guzman v. Crispy Catfish & Seafood, Inc. 665 So. 2d 117 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
The jurisprudence likewise establishes that the'right of a litigant to jury trial is fundamental in character and the courts will indulge every presumption against a waiver, loss or forfeiture thereof.” -30 (La.1988): Plaintiffs or defendant’s right to a jury trial depends on the good faith amount in dispute and not necessarily on the amount initially demanded by the plaintiff....
Palmer v. Blue Water Marine Catering, Inc. 663 So. 2d 780 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
Walker v. Zimmerman 659 So. 2d 783 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
the Supreme Court held that amendments to the jurisdictional amount in La.C.C.P.
Black v. Prudential Property & Cas. Ins. 634 So. 2d 1340 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
Inzerella v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 640 So. 2d 329 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Herzog's Automotive Parts, Inc. v. Baronne Auto Supply, Inc. 632 So. 2d 806 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
art. 1731(B) traditionally have recognized the right to trial by jury only when the “principal demand” exceeds the jurisdictional amount as established by La.C.C.P.
Gilbert v. Laborde 632 So. 2d 1162 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
Crumling v. Crumling 628 So. 2d 1194 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
text accompanying n. 6 (La.1988); Testa Distributing Co., (La.App.
Crumling v. Crumling 628 So. 2d 1194 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
text accompanying n. 6 (La.1988); Testa Distributing Co., (La.App.
Mitchell v. Fradella 628 So. 2d 1198 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
The clear import of LSA CCP Art. 1731 and LSA CCP Art. 1732 applied in pari materia is that jury trials are only available when justified by the nature and amount of the principal demand, LSA CCP Art. 1731; in accord, a determination which must be made by the trial judge.
May v. Winn Dixie Louisiana, Inc. 613 So. 2d 1026 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
Duvoisin v. National Tea Co. 598 So. 2d 344 La. 1992
Parker v. Rowan Companies, Inc. 628 So. 2d 1108 La. 1991
Testa Distributing Co., Inc. v. Tarver 584 So. 2d 300 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
Hortman-Salmen Co. v. White, 168 La.
Socorro v. City of New Orleans 579 So. 2d 931 La. 1991
art. 1935 (repealed), a statute providing for attorney fees in the collection of promissory notes) (La.
Dupre v. Joe's Riverside Seafood, Inc. 578 So. 2d 158 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
Hortman-Salmen *164 Co. v. White, 168 La.
Scott v. Schwegmann Bros. Giant Supermarket, Inc. 569 So. 2d 61 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
which holds that when a good faith amount in dispute exceeds $10,000.00, a plaintiff should not be able to file a demand for less or reduce the initial demand to less for purposes of defeating the defendant’s right to a jury trial.
Thibert v. Smith 560 So. 2d 553 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
the Louisiana Supreme Court interpreted LSA-C.
Nugent v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 551 So. 2d 797 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Pope v. Penrod Drilling Co. 548 So. 2d 37 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Marks v. Petroleum Helicopters, Inc., an unreported decision bearing Number W89-447 on the Docket of the Court rendered on May 1, 1989.
Creppel v. Coronation Shipping Co. 544 So. 2d 388 La. 1989
Ford v. McDERMOTT INC. 543 So. 2d 1135 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Deterville v. Impastato 539 So. 2d 1013 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
The Louisiana Supreme Court recently interpreted articles 1731 and 1732
Mussare v. National Tea Co. 536 So. 2d 1206 La. 1989
Case remanded for a hearing in accordance with *1207
Morgan v. Angelina Casualty Co. 532 So. 2d 107 La. 1988
Shannon v. Davis 531 So. 2d 462 La. 1988
O'Neil v. Commercial Union Insurance Co. 531 So. 2d 463 La. 1988
Boone v. Louisiana Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co. 531 So. 2d 467 La. 1988
George v. Bolton 531 So. 2d 467 La. 1988