Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Clement v. Frey, 666 So. 2d 607.

412 citing documents.

Hussey v. Russell 934 So. 2d 766 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
In Clement v. Frey, 95-1119 (La.1/16/96), , the supreme court found the Cornish panel had erred when, after finding the trial court had committed manifest error in the apportionment of fault, it conducted a de novo review on the issue.
Nelson v. City of Shreveport 921 So. 2d 1111 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
Duncan v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co., 00-0066 (La.10/30/00), ; Clement v. Frey, 95-1119 (La.01/16/96), .
Nelson v. City of Shreveport 921 So. 2d 1111 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
Duncan v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co., 00-0066 (La.10/30/00), ; Clement v. Frey, 95-1119 (La.01/16/96), .
Mary E. Cormier v. Robert Colston and Allstate Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
Amanda Broussard v. Family Dollar Store La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
Cormier v. Colston 918 So. 2d 541 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
Clement v. Frey, 95-1119 (La.1/16/96), .
Broussard v. Family Dollar Store 918 So. 2d 1148 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
Clement v. Frey, 95-1119 (La.1/16/96), .
Sciambra v. Jerome Imports, Inc. 921 So. 2d 145 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
Clement v. Frey, 95-1119, p. 7 (La.1/16/96), .
Peters v. Williams 917 So. 2d 702 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
art. 2324.1; Clement v. Frey, 95-1119 (La.1/16/96), .
Joseph Moraus v. Jennifer Frederick La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
Moraus v. Frederick 916 So. 2d 474 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
Clement v. Frey, 95-1119, 95-1163 (La.1/16/96), .
M. Jayne Yellot v. Underwriters In. Co. and Sabine Pools, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
Yellott v. Underwriters Ins. Co. 915 So. 2d 917 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
Clement v. Frey, 95-1119, 95-1163 (La.1/16/96), .
STATE FARM MUT. AUTO. IN. v. Ford Motor Co. 925 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
1st Cir.9/26/03), , writs denied, 03-3161, 03-3200 (La.2/6/04), , 727, citing Clement v. Frey, 95-1119, p. 2 (La.1/16/96), (Lemmon, J. concurring).
McElroy v. Wilhite 903 So. 2d 627 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
I therefore emphasized that the deference owed to the trier of fact for a true reapportionment of fault under Clement v. Frey, 95-1119 (La.1/16/96), did not apply.
Joseph S. Provost, Jr. and Joanna D. Provost v. USA Truck, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
Provost v. USA Truck, Inc. 901 So. 2d 1220 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
Clement v. Frey, 95-1119 (La.1/16/96), .
Lam Ex Rel. Lam v. State Farm Auto. Ins. 901 So. 2d 559 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
Clement v. Frey, 95-1119 (La.1/16/96); (Lemmon, J., concurring) citing
Collier v. Benedetto 897 So. 2d 775 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
Clement v. Frey, 95-1119, 95-1163 (La.01/16/96), -610 .
Brown v. State 896 So. 2d 1136 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
Clement v. Frey, 95-1119 (La.1/16/96), at 610 (footnote omitted).
De La Cruz v. Riley 895 So. 2d 589 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
4 Cir. 10/30/00), citing Clement v. Frey, 95-1119 (La.1/16/96); 610 .
Henry v. Williams 892 So. 2d 765 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
Clement v. Frey, 95-1119 (La.1/16/96, ); Gladney v. Sneed, 32,107 (La.App.
Julie Guidry v. Coregis Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
Inadequate Warnings 12 Clement v. Frey, 95-1119 (La.1/16/96), Cheairs v. State, 03-680 (La.12/3/03)
Guidry v. Coregis Ins. Co. 896 So. 2d 164 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
[12] Clement v. Frey, 95-1119 (La.1/16/96), ; Cheairs v. State, 03-680 (La.12/3/03), .
Ducombs v. Nobel Ins. Co. 884 So. 2d 596 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
In reviewing allocation of fault, the Louisiana Supreme Court in Clement v. Frey, 95-1119, p. 7 (La.1/16/96), -611 , explained, "there is an analogy between excessive or inadequate quantum determinations and excessive or inadequate fault percentage determinations.
Jessica Renee Doucet Bouley v. Dennis Guidry La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
Bouley v. Guidry 883 So. 2d 1099 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
“After the court of appeal finds a ‘clearly wrong’ apportionment of fault, it should adjust the award, but only to the extent of lowering or raising it to the highest or lowest point respectively which is reasonably within the trial court’s discretion.” Clement v. Frey, 95-1119, 95-1163, pp. 7-8 (La.1/16/96), .
Guillot v. Doe 879 So. 2d 374 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
[18] 95-1119 (La.1/16/96), .
Melvin G. Guillot, Indiv. Etc v. John Doe, Indiv. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
Musacchia v. Hilton New Orleans Corp. 876 So. 2d 901 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
Clement v. Frey, 95-1119 (La.1/16/96), .
Toston v. Pardon 874 So. 2d 791 La. 2004
Clement v. Frey, 95-1119, p. 8-9 (La.1/16/96), .
Celia Ann Marks v. Ohmeda, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
In reviewing allocation of fault, the Louisiana Supreme Court in Clement v. Frey, 95-1119, p. 7 (La.1/16/96); -11, explained, "there is an analogy between excessive or inadequate quantum determinations and excessive or inadequate fault percentage determinations.
Marks v. Ohmeda, Inc. 871 So. 2d 1148 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
In reviewing allocation of fault, the Louisiana Supreme Court in Clement v. Frey, 95-1119, p. 7 (La.1/16/96); -11 , explained, "there is an analogy between excessive or inadequate quantum determinations and excessive or inadequate fault percentage determinations.
Rizzuto v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation & Development 870 So. 2d 1034 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
Clement v. Frey, 95-1119, p. 6-7 (La.1/16/96), -610 (citations omitted).
Turner v. Lyons 867 So. 2d 13 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
Clement v. Frey, 95-1119 (La.1/16/96), .
O'CONNOR v. Litchfield 864 So. 2d 234 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Clement v. Frey, 95-1119, 95-1163, p. 8 (La.1/16/96), .
Justin Douglas Henderson v. Brian Sellers La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
Clement v. 9 Frey, 95-1119 (La.1/6/96)
Henderson v. Sellers 861 So. 2d 923 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
Clement v. Frey, 95-1119 (La.1/6/96), .
Thonn v. Cook 863 So. 2d 628 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
Clement v. Frey, 95-1119 (La.1/16/96); 610 .
Misewicz v. Gamso 860 So. 2d 119 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
In Clement v. Frey, 95-1119 (La.1/16/96), , the Louisiana Supreme Court stated that "the trier of fact is owed some deference in allocating fault, for the finding of percentages of *125 fault pursuant to the comparative fault article, La.
Neloms v. Empire Fire & Marine Ins. Co. 859 So. 2d 225 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
Clement v. Frey, 95-1119 c/w 95-1163 (La.1/16/96), .
Levy v. BAYOU INDUS. MAINTENANCE SERVICES 855 So. 2d 968 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Clement v. Frey, 95-1119, p. 2 (La.1/16/96), (Lemmon, J. concurring).
Owens v. Brown 864 So. 2d 640 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
Clement v. Frey, 95-1119, 95-1163 (La.01/16/96), ; De Los Reyes v. USAA Casualty Insurance Co., 28,491 (La.App.2d Cir.06/26/96), .
Cheatham v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 858 So. 2d 89 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
1/16/96), p. 7-8, ], tells us that the allocation of fault is not an exact science, or the search for one precise ratio.
Estate of Hickerson v. Zimmerman 853 So. 2d 55 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Clement v. Frey, 95-1119 (La.1/16/96); 610 .
Chisholm v. Clarendon Nat. Ins. Co. 850 So. 2d 1070 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
The reallocation of fault under Clement v. Frey, 95-1119 (La.01/16/96), , requires deference to a trier-of-fact, who has found both the plaintiff and the defendant at fault under our comparative fault regime.
Temple v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation & Development 858 So. 2d 569 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Clement v. Frey, 95-1119, 95-1163, p. 7 (La.1/16/96), -11 .
Temple v. STATE EX REL. DOTD 858 So. 2d 569 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Clement v. Frey, 95-1119, 95-1163, p. 7 (La.1/16/96), -11 .
Poland v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 885 So. 2d 1144 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Clement v. Frey, 95-1119 c/w 95-1163 (La.1/16/96), .
Corbello v. Iowa Production 850 So. 2d 686 La. 2003
Clement v. Frey, 95-1119 (La.1/16/96); .

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by