Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Stiles v. K Mart Corp., 597 So. 2d 1012.

62 citing documents.

Cy Williams Versus Mathew Alexander, III and Roussel Farms, Inc. La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2025
(citing Stiles v. K Mart Corp., (La.
Derrick Mills Versus Harley-Davidson Motor Company, Inc. La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2025
See id., citing Stiles v. K Mart Corp., (La.
Robert Broussard and R.J. Broussard General Contractors Inc. v. Multi-Chem Group, LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2021
Stiles [v. K Mart Corp., ].
Patricia Settoon v. Juan Morales; Plant Performance Services LLC; and Continental Casualty Company La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
3d at 36, citing Stiles v. K Mart Corporation, ( La.
Berry v. Anco Insulations 273 So. 3d 595 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2019
Stiles v. K Mart Corp. , (La.
McBride v. Lichtenstein 260 So. 3d 658 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
However, in Stiles v. K-Mart Corp. , (La.
Riley Leblanc v. City of Abbeville La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
Stiles v. K Mart Corp., (remanding for a determination of “an award for future medical expenses which the medical evidence established that plaintiff, more probably than not, will be required to incur”); Maraist & Galligan, supra, § 7.02[1], 7-5-7-6.
LeBlanc v. City of Abbeville 259 So. 3d 372 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
Stiles v. K Mart Corp. , , 1012 (La.1992) (remanding for a determination of "an award for future medical expenses which the medical evidence established that plaintiff, more probably than not, will be required to incur"); Maraist & Galligan, supra , § 7.02[1], 7-5-7-6.
Michael Albarado, Individually v. Citgo Petroleum Corporation La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
Albarado v. Citgo Petroleum Corp. 247 So. 3d 818 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
Stiles v. K Mart Corp. , , 1012 (La.1992).
Levy v. Lewis 219 So. 3d 1150 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
1993), which held: plaintiff proved that he would require future medical treatment, but did not present expert testimony as to the cost of the treatment.
Brittainey Huntley v. 21st Century Premier Insurance Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
Stiles v. K Mart Corp., (remanding for a determination of “an award for future medical expenses which the medical evidence established that plaintiff, more probably than not, will be required to incur”); Maraist & Galligan, supra, § 7.02[1], 7-5-7-6.
Huntley v. 21st Century Premier Insurance Co. 204 So. 3d 1085 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
Stiles v. K Mart Corp., (remanding for a determination of “an award for future medical expenses which the medical evidence established that plaintiff, more probably than not, will be required to incur”); Maraist & Galligan, supra, § 7.02[1], 7-5-7-6.
Hobgood v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 156 So. 3d 1244 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Co., 09-1869, p. 12 (La.3/16/10), , citing Stiles v. K Mart Corp.
Gaspard v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co. 155 So. 3d 24 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Loretta Dowden v. Gina Cutright La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
Nonetheless, an award of future medical expenses is permitted when the record establishes the need for future medical treatment and there is evidence of past medical expenses in addition 7 to other evidence that allows the court to determine ―a minimum amount that reasonable minds could not disagree will be required.‖ Stiles v. K Mart Corp.
Kathy A. Darbonne, Et Ux. v. Bertrand Investments, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
Stiles [v. K Mart Corp.]
Sonja Dauzat Deligans, Et Ux. v. Ace American Insurance Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
Nevertheless, the supreme court has held that an award of future medical expenses can be made where the record establishes the need for future medical treatment and evidence of past medical expenses and other evidence allows the court to determine “a minimum amount that reasonable minds could not disagree will be required.” Stiles v. K Mart Corp.
Deligans v. Ace American Insurance 86 So. 3d 109 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Nevertheless, the supreme court has held that an award of future medical expenses can be made where the record establishes the need for future medical treatment and evidence of past medical expenses and other evidence allows the court to determine “a minimum amount that reasonable minds could not disagree will be required.” Stiles v. K Mart Corp.
Adrienne Stelly v. Zurich American Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
Stiles v. K Mart Corp., (per curiam) (emphasis added).
Stelly v. Zurich American Ins. Co. 83 So. 3d 1225 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Stiles v. K Mart Corp., (per curiam) (emphasis added).
Arlene Chambers v. Village of Moreauville La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
Chambers v. Village of Moreauville 60 So. 3d 125 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
Alisa Simon v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
Simon v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 43 So. 3d 990 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Stiles v. K Mart Corporation
Menard v. Lafayette Insurance Co. 31 So. 3d 996 La. 2010
Stiles v. K Mart Corp., (remanding for a determination of “an award for future medical expenses which the medical evidence established that plaintiff, more probably than not, will be required to incur”); Maraist & Galligan, supra, § 7.02[1], 7-5-7-6.
DUNOMES v. Plaquemines Parish Government 24 So. 3d 242 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Youn, 623 So.2d at 1262 , quoted approvingly from its earlier decision in Stiles v. K Mart Corporation, : [aWhen the record establishes that future medical expenses will be necessary and inevitable, the court should not reject an award of future medical expenses on the basis that the record does not provide the exact value of the necessary expenses, if the court can examine the record and determine from e
Brewer v. J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc. 9 So. 3d 932 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Stiles v. K Mart Corp., (per curiam); Levy v. Bayou Indus.
Adele Gradnigo, Et Ux. v. Louisiana Farm Bureau Casualty Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
Gradnigo v. Louisiana Farm Bureau Casualty Ins. Co. 6 So. 3d 367 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
D'AMBROSIA v. Lang 985 So. 2d 800 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
The statement in Gunn stems from a pronouncement in the 1992 Louisiana Supreme Court case of Stiles v. K Mart Corp., (per curiam).
Dufrene v. Gautreau Family, LLC 980 So. 2d 68 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
Hymel v. HMO of Louisiana, Inc. 951 So. 2d 187 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
Joseph Lionel Melancon v. Lafayette Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Nevertheless, the supreme court has held that an award of future medical expenses can be made where the record establishes the need for future medical treatment and evidence of past medical expenses and other evidence allows the court to determine “a minimum amount that reasonable minds could not disagree will be required.” Stiles v. K Mart Corp.
Melancon v. Lafayette Ins. Co. 926 So. 2d 693 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Stiles v. K Mart Corp., (La.
Hanks v. Seale 904 So. 2d 662 La. 2005
Stiles v. K Mart Corp., (per curiam).
Hall v. Folger Coffee Co. 857 So. 2d 1234 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
Levy v. BAYOU INDUS. MAINTENANCE SERVICES 855 So. 2d 968 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Stiles v. K Mart, (per curiam); LSA-C.C.P.
Collins v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co. 833 So. 2d 1166 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
Miller v. Clout 832 So. 2d 372 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
In Stiles v. K Mart Corp., the supreme court addressed the issue of future medical expenses and stated: When the record establishes that future medical expenses will be necessary and inevitable, the court should not reject an award of future medical expenses on the basis that the record does not provide the exact value of the n
Dugas v. Derouen 824 So. 2d 475 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
In Stiles v. K Mart Corp., the supreme court addressed the issue of future medical expenses and stated: When the record establishes that future medical expenses will be necessary and inevitable, the court should not reject an award of future medical expenses on the basis that the record does not provide the exact value of the n
Anderson v. Tenneco Oil Co. 826 So. 2d 1143 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
Fusilier v. Dauterive 779 So. 2d 950 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
The Louisiana Supreme Court addressed this issue in Stiles v. K Mart Corp., : When the record establishes that future medical expenses will be necessary and inevitable, the court should not reject an award of future medical expenses on the basis that the record does not provide the exact value of the necessary expenses, if the court can examine the record and determine from evi
Mendoza v. Mashburn 747 So. 2d 1159 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
DeYoung v. Simons 743 So. 2d 851 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
Stiles v. K [Mart Corp.], (La.
Edwards v. Daugherty 729 So. 2d 1112 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
In Stiles v. K Mart Corp., (La.
Pryor v. UNITED SERVICES AUTO. ASSOC. 729 So. 2d 658 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
Williams v. East Baton Rouge Parish 723 So. 2d 1093 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
However, defendants have not appealed this finding, therefore, the matter is not before us. [8] Stiles v. K Mart Corp.
Hanson v. Benelli 719 So. 2d 627 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
The court therefore awarded $15,000.00 for future medical care, stating this was "a minimum amount about which reasonable minds could not disagree" pursuant to Stiles v. K Mart Corporation
Smith v. Goetzman 720 So. 2d 39 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998