Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Dixon v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc., 638 So. 2d 306.

30 citing documents.

Chaisson v. State 239 So. 3d 1074 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
4 Cir. 5/17/94) , , 312 ) ).
Levy v. Lewis 219 So. 3d 1150 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
Guillot v. Daimlerchrysler Corp. 50 So. 3d 173 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
4 Cir. 5/17/94) , ); see also Gurley, 2007-1477, pp. 3-4, 985 So.2d at 302 .
Kimpton Hotel & Rest. v. Lib. Mut. Fire In. 974 So. 2d 72 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2007
Norman Mitchell v. Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
Mitchell v. Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc. 916 So. 2d 465 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
LeMasters v. Boyd Gaming Corp. 898 So. 2d 497 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
Trunk v. MED. CENTER OF LA. AT NEW ORLEANS 863 So. 2d 675 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
Holloway v. Midland Risk Ins. Co. 832 So. 2d 1004 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
App. 4th Cir.5/17/94), .
Hanley v. Doctors Hosp. of Shreveport 821 So. 2d 508 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
Dumas v. City of New Orleans 803 So. 2d 1001 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
4 Cir. 5/17/94) , ($50,000 to grocery shopper falsely arrested for shoplifting); (La.App.
Young v. First National Bank of Shreveport 794 So. 2d 128 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
App. 4th Cir.5/17/94), .
LOUISIANA SAFETY ASS'N v. Malone Lumber, Inc. 793 So. 2d 218 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
4th Cir.5/17/94), ; (La.App.
Daniels v. Burridge 785 So. 2d 906 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
Fromenthal v. Delta Wells Surveyors, Inc. 776 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
4 Cir. 5/17/94), , citing Clement v. Griffin, 91-1664 (La.App.
North American Land Development v. Higginbotham 771 So. 2d 245 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
Fazande v. City of New Orleans 729 So. 2d 738 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
4 Cir. 5/17/94) , , the City’s version of the facts surrounding the dangerous condition of the stairs in this case is different in several significant details from Ms. Fazande’s version.
Wilson v. PNS Stores, Inc. 725 So. 2d 66 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
4th Cir.5/17/94), , 316: A trial judge's only proper function during a jury trial is to act as an impartial "umpire" in an adversary system.
Reed v. Recard 744 So. 2d 13 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
4th Cir.5/17/94); , abrogated on other grounds by Hoskin v. Plaquemines Parish Government, 97-0061, p.5 (La.App.
Savoie-Moore v. Moore 719 So. 2d 551 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
Smith v. K-Mart Corp. 712 So. 2d 1042 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
Molony v. USAA Property and Cas. Ins. Co. 708 So. 2d 1220 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
Brodtmann v. Duke 708 So. 2d 447 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
Hoskin v. Plaquemines Parish Government 703 So. 2d 207 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
4 Cir. 5/17/94), , the panels adopted the "necessary and inevitable" standard.
Landeche v. McSwain 688 So. 2d 1303 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
Jones v. Peyton Place, Inc. 675 So. 2d 754 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
Turner v. Pelican 661 So. 2d 1065 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
4th Cir. 5/17/94) -323 , this Court stated the rule for reviewing awards for future medical expenses as follows: "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
Young v. Logue 660 So. 2d 32 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
App. 4th Cir. 5/17/94), , as follows: 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 eviden
McCoy v. Calamia 653 So. 2d 763 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
4 Cir. 5/17/94) , , the court discussed this as follows: “Generally, a trial judge is afforded discretion in conducting a trial, even a jury trial.
Bridgett v. Odeco, Inc. 646 So. 2d 1249 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
4 Cir. 5/17/94) ; , as follows: 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 eviden