Cited by

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

620 citing documents.

Saunders v. ANPAC LOUISIANA INS. CO. 988 So. 2d 896 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
Ostarly v. Ostarly 988 So. 2d 276 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
see also Thomson v. Thomson, 07-988, p. 4-5 (La.App.
Brooks v. Wiley 985 So. 2d 1269 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
MacK v. Wiley 991 So. 2d 479 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
Cannet v. Franklynn Pest Control Co., Inc. 985 So. 2d 270 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
Maranto v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 94-2603 (La.2/20/95), .
Ruiz v. Guette 983 So. 2d 959 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
( citing, Smith, 523 So.2d at 822 ; Hastings, 498 So.2d at 720 ).
Doris Saunier v. Lacye Nolan La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
and Development, Sistler v. Liberty Mutual Ins.
Gerald v. Gomez 978 So. 2d 1257 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
Thomson v. Thomson 978 So. 2d 509 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
Stephen Scull Thomson v. Lily Marie Steel Thomson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
Dufrene v. Gautreau Family, LLC 980 So. 2d 68 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
Boxie v. Smith-Ruffin 979 So. 2d 539 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
Bittner v. Scott 980 So. 2d 5 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
Woolfolk v. TRISM, INC. 976 So. 2d 216 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
Whether an accident caused a person's injuries is a question of fact which should not be reversed on appeal absent manifest error.
Jennings Guest House v. Jayme Gibson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
Jennings Guest House v. Gibson 971 So. 2d 506 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
Sawyer v. Christiana 973 So. 2d 72 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2007
Venissat v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. 968 So. 2d 1063 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
They also allege that the trial court committed reversible, legal error by failing to provide the jury with the instruction of law, which states that a person is entitled to a presumption that a disability resulted from an accident, if the person was in good health prior to the accident, but thereafter continuously manifests a disabling injury, and the medical evidence reasonably supports the possibility of such a causal link.
Palm v. ENCOMPASS INS. CO. OF AMERICA 970 So. 2d 1090 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2007
See generally, Sistler v. Liberty Mutual Ins.
Lee J. Stagg v. National Automotive Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
Camo Construction Co., Inc. v. Town of Vidalia La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
CAMO CONST. CO., INC. v. Town of Vidalia 966 So. 2d 796 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
Theodore Venissat v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
They also allege that the trial court committed reversible, legal error by failing to provide the jury with the instruction of law, which states that a person is entitled to a presumption that a disability resulted from an accident, if the person was in good health prior to the accident, but thereafter continuously manifests a disabling injury, and the medical evidence reasonably supports the possibility of such a causal link.
Charles Layssard v. State of La., Dept. of Public Safety and Corrections La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
created a presumption that aids a plaintiff in proving that there is a causal link 8 between an accident and subsequent injury.
Layssard v. STATE, DEPART. OF PUBLIC SAFETY 963 So. 2d 1053 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
created a presumption that aids a plaintiff in proving that there is a causal link between an accident and subsequent injury.
Marie Langlinais v. Dr. Richard Dearman La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
at 882-83 () (quoting 3 Sistler v. Liberty Mutual Ins.
Langlinais v. Dearman 957 So. 2d 945 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
at 882-83 () (quoting Sistler v. Liberty Mutual Ins.
Littleton v. Richardson Medical Center 954 So. 2d 812 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
hnThis rule, has become known as the “Housley presumption.” The application of this presumption to the facts is itself a question of fact subject to manifest error review.
Pena v. Delchamps, Inc. 960 So. 2d 988 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
Leighow v. Crump 960 So. 2d 122 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
Finally, in addition to my opinion that the evidence in the record established conclusively that the incident at Kean's caused Ms. Leighow to suffer from vestibular dysfunction, I also find that the established, that a medical condition producing disability is presumed to have resulted from an accident if, before the accident, the injured person was in good health, but shortly after the accident, the disabling condition manifested itself, providing *132 that the medical evidence shows there to b
Rabalais v. Nash 952 So. 2d 653 La. 2007
and Development, Sistler v. Liberty Mutual Ins.
Arnold v. Hancock 950 So. 2d 911 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
Roger R. Arnold v. Donald S. Hancock La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
River Garden Apartments v. Horton 948 So. 2d 396 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
River Garden Apartments v. Horton 948 So. 2d 399 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
Coleman v. Townsend 948 So. 2d 369 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
Detraz v. Lee 950 So. 2d 557 La. 2007
The trial court instructed the jury on the elements of negligence, then instructed the jury that Ms. Detraz was entitled to a
Ridgeway v. Pierre 950 So. 2d 884 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2007
MacHelle D. Hardison v. Buffet Pizza Co., LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
Nonetheless, this Court has emphasized that “the 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.
Mulreany v. Williams 945 So. 2d 291 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
Additionally, in which the Louisiana Supreme Court stated that a claimant’s disability is presumed to have resulted from an accident if the injured person was in good health before the accident, the symptoms of the injury appeared and continually manifested themselves afterwards, and the medical evidence supported a reas
Jordan v. Vice 943 So. 2d 1278 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Robert C. Jordan v. Zoie R. Vice La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Courts are not obligated to give the specific jury instructions submitted by the parties, but omission of a requested instruction containing an essential legal principal [sic] may constitute reversible 1
Baker v. Speedway Super America, LLC 951 So. 2d 220 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
Terry v. RED RIVER CENTER CORP. 942 So. 2d 1238 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
Stobart v. State, Through DOTD, Sistler v. Liberty Mutual Ins.
Allie Mae Bruce v. Rapides Regional Medical Center La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Walter Randall v. the Rapides Foundation D/B/A Rapides Reg. Med. Center La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Bullock v. the Rapides Foundation 941 So. 2d 170 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Edwards v. LCR-M CORP., INC. 936 So. 2d 233 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
Stobart v. State, Through DOTD, Sistler v. Liberty Mutual Ins.
Wade v. TEACHERS'RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF LOUISIANA 938 So. 2d 103 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
Hall v. Pipkin 930 So. 2d 354 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
Stobart v. State, Through DOTD, Sistler v. Liberty Mutual Ins.