DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Housley v. Cerise, 579 So. 2d 973.

620 citing documents.

  • Musacchia v. Hilton New Orleans Corp. 876 So. 2d 901 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
    (quoting Sistler v. Liberty Mutual Ins.
  • McCarter v. Sanchez 874 So. 2d 918 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
    the Louisiana Supreme Court, stated that: |fi[a] claimant’s disability is presumed to have resulted from an accident, if before the accident the injured person was in good health, but commencing with the accident the symptoms of
  • Walker Lands, Inc. v. E. CARROLL POLICE JURY 871 So. 2d 1258 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
    (quoting Sistler v. Liberty Mutual Ins.
  • Jacobs v. Regional Transit Authority 872 So. 2d 571 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
  • Kenneth Dodge v. S & B Logging La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
  • Dodge v. S & B Logging 867 So. 2d 105 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
  • Craige v. Broome 869 So. 2d 242 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
    Stobart v. State, Through DOTD, Sistler v. Liberty Mutual Ins.
  • Johnson v. Melton 867 So. 2d 804 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
    Stobart v. State, Through DOTD, Sistler v. Liberty Mutual Ins.
  • Turner v. Lyons 867 So. 2d 13 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
  • Alexander v. Ford 866 So. 2d 890 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
  • Williams v. Louisiana Medical Mutual Insurance Co. 866 So. 2d 306 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
    See generally, Sistler v. Liberty Mutual Ins.
  • American Cent. Ins. Co. v. Terex Crane 861 So. 2d 228 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
  • Bruce v. State Farm Ins. Co. 859 So. 2d 296 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
  • Miller v. Clout 857 So. 2d 458 La. 2003
    See generally, Sistler v. Liberty Mutual Ins.
  • Coffey v. Mushatt 859 So. 2d 727 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    Stobart v. State, Through DOTD, Sistler v. Liberty Mutual Ins.
  • Hall v. Folger Coffee Co. 857 So. 2d 1234 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
  • Sanchez v. Hawkins 857 So. 2d 1125 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    at 882-3 , citing, quoting, Sistler v. Liberty Mutual Ins.
  • Bradford v. Onshore Pipeline Const. Co. 853 So. 2d 756 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
    (quoting Sistler v. Liberty Mutual Ins.
  • Tittle v. Brookshire's Grocery Co. 852 So. 2d 1241 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
    In fact, “where two permissible views of the evidence exist, the factfinder’s choice between them cannot be manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong.” Stobart, supra; Sistler v. Liberty Mutual Ins.
  • Hubbard v. State 852 So. 2d 1097 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
  • Burnett v. Lewis 852 So. 2d 519 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
    See generally, Sistler v. Liberty Mutual Ins.
  • Alcorn v. City of Baton Rouge 851 So. 2d 1194 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    and Dev., -83 (La.1993); Sistler v. Liberty Mutual Ins.
  • Poland v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 885 So. 2d 1144 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    ligence, when a plaintiff is in good health prior to an accident, but commencing with the accident symptoms of disabling conditions appear and continuously manifest themselves, with the medical evidence showing a reasonable possibility of a causal connection between the accident and the disabling condition, a plaintiff is entitled to a
  • Robinson v. Franklin 851 So. 2d 315 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
    ealthy individuals,” and; 2) “The medical records submitted reflected no real objective findings.” The Robinsons first assert that the trial court erred in failing to sustain a presumption of causation, discussed by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Maranto v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company 4 : wherein this court stated that: [a] claimant’s disability is presumed to have resulted from an accident, if before the accident the injured person was in good health, but commencing with the accident the s
  • Broyard v. Rainer 850 So. 2d 793 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
  • Novosyolova v. Stephens 850 So. 2d 29 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
    Stobart v. State, Through DOTD, Sistler v. Liberty Mutual Ins.
  • Russell v. Allstate Insurance Co. 848 So. 2d 730 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
  • Woodbury v. DEPT. OF TRANSP. AND DEVELOPMENT 848 So. 2d 104 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
    See generally, Sistler v. Liberty Mutual Ins.
  • Cupit v. State 847 So. 2d 36 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
  • Steinhoff v. Steinhoff 843 So. 2d 1290 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
    The Louisiana Supreme Court has constantly emphasized that "[t]he reviewing court must always keep in mind that `if the trial court or jury's findings are reasonable in light of the record reviewed in its entirety, the court of appeal may not reverse, even if convinced that had it been sitting as the trier of fact, it would have weighed the evidence differently.'" ( quoting Sistler v. Liberty Mutual Ins.
  • Delaune v. Harrelson 843 So. 2d 1216 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    See generally, Sistler v. Liberty Mutual Ins.
  • Williams v. Super Trucks, Inc. 842 So. 2d 1210 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
    [ Stobart, supra, (quoting Sistler v. Liberty Mutual Ins.
  • Young v. Brown 846 So. 2d 88 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
  • Flint v. Trolley Stop 843 So. 2d 635 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
  • Farrell v. Pierre 846 So. 2d 49 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
  • Dixon v. Travelers Ins. Co. 842 So. 2d 478 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
  • Burns v. UHS of New Orleans, Inc. 841 So. 2d 51 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
  • Jones v. City of New Orleans 840 So. 2d 620 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    The City initiates its argument by a strenuous assertion of the manifest error standard of review supporting the trial court’s factual findings, citing the usual suspects:
  • Rogers v. State 838 So. 2d 849 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
  • Kirklin v. Joseph 839 So. 2d 405 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    Stobart v. State, Through DODT, Sistler v. Liberty Mutual Ins.
  • Adams v. Chenault 836 So. 2d 1193 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
    Ms. Adams contends that because she had no headaches or neck pain prior to the accident
  • Bonnette v. Conoco, Inc. 837 So. 2d 1219 La. 2003
    at 882-83 ( (quoting Sistler v. Liberty Mutual Ins.
  • Lay v. Vickers 836 So. 2d 525 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
    (La.1991); LaSalle v. Benson Car Co., Inc., 00-1459(La.App.
  • Boren v. ABC Insurance Co. 834 So. 2d 1119 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
    The reviewing court must always keep in mind that, “if the | atrial court or jury’s findings are reasonable in light of the record reviewed in its entirety, the court of appeal may not reverse, even if convinced that had it been sitting as the trier of fact, it would have weighed the evidence differently.” Stobart, supra, (quoting Sistler v. Liberty Mutual Ins.
  • Este v. Roussel 833 So. 2d 999 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
  • Lindsay v. USAA Property and Cas. Ins. Co. 830 So. 2d 335 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
    and found that the collision must have caused Mr. Lindsey's injury because there was no evidence to the contrary to rebut the presumption that the *338 accident was the cause of Mr. Lindsey's objective injuries.
  • Updegraff v. STATE EX REL. DOTD 828 So. 2d 693 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
    See generally, , *699 1351 (La.1992); Sistler v. Liberty Mutual Ins.
  • Updegraff v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation & Development 828 So. 2d 693 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    See generally, *699 1351 (La.1992); Sistler v. Liberty Mutual Ins.
  • Riley v. Maison Orleans II, Inc. 829 So. 2d 479 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
  • Kunofsky v. Davie Shoring, Inc. 828 So. 2d 1203 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    Stobart v. State, Through DOTD, Sistler v. Liberty Mutual Ins.