DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Young v. Ford Motor Co., Inc., 595 So. 2d 1123.

70 citing documents.

  • Taylor v. Burton 708 So. 2d 531 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
    See, Young v. Ford Motor Co., Inc.
  • Ford Motor Credit v. Laing 705 So. 2d 1283 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
    Young v. Ford Motor Co., Inc., Arnold v. Wray Ford, Inc., (La.App.
  • Delaney v. Whitney Nat. Bank 703 So. 2d 709 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
  • Gupta v. Moss 698 So. 2d 13 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
    Young v. Ford Motor Co., Inc.
  • Nolan v. Commonwealth Nat. Life Ins. Co. 688 So. 2d 581 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
    See Young v. Ford Motor Co., Inc., (La.
  • Grimaldi v. JP & Sons Contractors 686 So. 2d 935 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1996
    Young v. Ford Motor Co., Inc.
  • Fly v. Allstar Ford Lincoln Mercury, Inc. 690 So. 2d 759 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    Young v. Ford Motor Co., Inc.
  • Ganheart v. Executive House Apartments 671 So. 2d 525 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
    our Supreme Court interpreted article 1998 to mean that "if it can be established that the obligee intended—and if the nature of the contract supports this contention—to gratify a significant nonpecuniary interest by way of the contract, and that the obligor either knew or should have known that failu
  • Chaudoir v. Porsche Cars of North America 667 So. 2d 569 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
    In Young v. Ford Motor Co., Inc., the Louisiana Supreme Court stated: Thus, under Article 1998, which is the controlling article for the type of damages referred to by the redhibition articles (specifically Article 2545), if it can be established that the obligee intended—and if the nature of the contract supports this contention—to g
  • Meche v. Harvey, Inc. 664 So. 2d 855 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
    Young v. Ford Motor Co., Inc.
  • Stonecipher v. Mitchell 655 So. 2d 1381 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
    See, Young v. Ford Motor Co., Inc.
  • Kosmala v. Paul 644 So. 2d 856 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
    Dr. Kosmala argues that the trial court erred in denying him recovery for nonpecuniary damages, citing Young v. Ford Motor Co, Inc., as support for this argument.
  • Morgan v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc. 640 So. 2d 453 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
    Young v. Ford Motor Co., Inc., Crawford v. Abbott Automobile Co., 157 La.
  • LeBlanc v. Mercedes-Benz of North America 633 So. 2d 399 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
    The latest pronouncement by the Louisiana Supreme Court on the issue of nonpecuniary damages is found in Young v. Ford Motor Company, Inc., (La.
  • Poche v. Bayliner Marine Corp. 632 So. 2d 1170 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1994
    Young v. Ford Motor Co., Inc.
  • Broom v. LEEBRON & ROBINSON RENT a CAR 626 So. 2d 1212 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
    See generally, Young v. Ford Motor Company, Inc., (La.App.
  • Johns v. American Isuzu Motors, Inc. 622 So. 2d 1208 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
    See also, generally, Young v. Ford Motor Co., Inc.
  • Arnold v. Wray Ford, Inc. 606 So. 2d 549 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
    Young v. Ford Motor Co., Inc., Holloway v. Gulf Motors, Inc., supra.
  • Manning v. Scott-Hixson-Hopkins, Inc. 605 So. 2d 233 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
    Young v. Ford Motor Co., Inc.
  • Mayerhofer v. Three R's Inc. 597 So. 2d 151 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
    This case presents us with an opportunity to address the award of damages for nonpecuniary loss since the Louisiana Supreme Court's recent pronouncement in Young v. Ford Motor Company, Inc.