DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

412 citing documents.

  • Pesson v. Reynolds 727 So. 2d 507 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    See Clement v. Frey, 95-1119, 95-1163, p. 7 (La.01/16/96), -11 .
  • Hebert v. Brown Bottling Group, Inc. 719 So. 2d 1043 La. 1998
    Clement v. Frey, 95-1119, 95-1163 (La.1/16/96), .
  • Moore v. Kansas City Southern R. Co. 722 So. 2d 296 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
    Clement v. Frey, 95-1119 (La.1/16/96)
  • Dufrene v. Willingham 721 So. 2d 1026 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
    Regarding an appellate review of allocation of fault, : "Just like in the quantum area, there is for sure a large amount of uncertainty in the allocation of fault.
  • Samuel v. Vicknair 718 So. 2d 634 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
    Clement v. Frey, 95-1119, 95-1163 (La.01/16/96), ; Jackson v. Town of Grambling, 29,198 (La.App.2d Cir.02/26/97), .
  • Bowens v. Patterson 716 So. 2d 69 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
    See generally, Clement v. Frey, 95-1119, 95-1163 (La.1/16/96); (75% fault to DOTD, 25 % fault to driver); Campbell v. Louisiana Dept. of Transp.
  • Oliver v. Ste. Marie 715 So. 2d 722 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
    See Clement v. Frey, 95-1119, (La.1/16/96); .
  • Cormier v. THE Ins. Co. 716 So. 2d 387 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
    Clement v. Frey, 95-1119, 95-1163 (La.1/16/96); .
  • Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Browning-Ferris Industries 714 So. 2d 168 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    Clement v. Frey, 95-1119 (La.1/16/96), ; Towns v. Georgia Cas.
  • Netecke v. State ex rel. DOTD 715 So. 2d 439 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    Clement v. Frey, 95-1119 (La.1/16/96); .
  • Brown v. Louisiana Indem. Co. 707 So. 2d 1240 La. 1998
    Clement v. Frey, 95-1119, 95-1163, p.8-10 (La.1/16/96), -12 .
  • Varnell v. Louisiana Tech University 709 So. 2d 890 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
    Clement v. Frey, 95-1119 (La.1/16/96), ; Hickman v. Exide Inc., 28,495 (La.App.2d Cir. 8/21/96), .
  • Bell v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co. 707 So. 2d 102 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
    LIGA cites Clement v. Frey, 95-1119 (La.1/16/96), , and urges that Calvary's percentage of fault can only be raised to the lowest affirmable level.
  • Vigh v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. 706 So. 2d 480 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
    Clement v. Frey, 95-1119, 95-1163 (La.1/16/96); .
  • Norton v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 707 So. 2d 489 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
    Clement v. Frey, 95-1119 (La.1/6/96), .
  • Constans v. Choctaw Transport, Inc. 712 So. 2d 885 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
    As the Supreme Court has indicated explicitly that it holds the fact-finder to no such precise standards Clement v. Frey, 95-1163 p. 7-8 (La.1/16/96), -611 ), it is unreasonable to expect parties in the course of settlement negotiations to anticipate the fact-finder's conclusions on allocation of fault with any certainty or precision.
  • Dual Drilling Co. v. MILLS EQUIPMENT INVS., INC. 705 So. 2d 1246 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
    Clement v. Frey, 95-1119, 95-1163 (La.1/16/96), pp. 7-8, -11 .
  • Riley v. Reliance Ins. Co. 703 So. 2d 158 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
    In our review of the jury's allocation of fault among the parties, we are guided by Clement v. Frey, 95-1119, 95-1163 (La.1/16/96), pp. 7-8, -611 .
  • Miller v. Dupont 702 So. 2d 902 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
    Therefore, in accordance with the rules announced in Clement v. Frey, 95-1119, 95-1163 (La.1/16/96), , we decrease the DOTD's fault to 50%, which is the highest that the district court could reasonably have allocated to the DOTD.
  • Carbon v. Allstate Ins. Co. 701 So. 2d 462 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
    See Clement v. Frey, 95-1119, 95-1163, p. 7 (La.1/16/96); -611 .
  • Manuel v. City of Jeanerette 702 So. 2d 709 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
    Clement v. Frey, 95-1119, 95-1163 (La.1/16/96)
  • Bellard v. South Cent. Bell Telephone Co. 702 So. 2d 695 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
    Clement v. Frey, 95-1119, 95-1163 (La.1/16/96); .
  • Grant v. Allstate Ins. Co. 696 So. 2d 275 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
    1/16/96); , 611 where the court held: "[a]fter 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."
  • Warner v. City of New Orleans 694 So. 2d 1231 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
    Clement v. Frey, 95-1119, p. 7 (La.1/16/96), -11 .
  • Southern v. Lyons 696 So. 2d 128 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
    Clement v. Frey, 95-1119, 95-1163 (La.1/16/96); .
  • Thompson v. Coates 694 So. 2d 599 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
    01/16/96), ; De Los Reyes v. USAA Casualty Insurance Co., 28,491 (La.App.2d Cir. 06/26/96), .
  • Medice v. Delchamps, Inc. 694 So. 2d 528 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
    Clement v. Frey, *531 Nos. 95-C-1119, 1163 (La.1/16/96), (emphasis added).
  • Goodwyne v. People's Moss Gin, Inc. 694 So. 2d 1101 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
    Clement v. Frey, 95-1119, 95-1163 (La.1/16/96); .
  • Cagnolatti v. Hightower 692 So. 2d 1104 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
    E.g. Clement v. Fry, 95-1119 (La.1/16/96), .
  • Tubre v. STATE, DOTD 693 So. 2d 1190 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
    Clement v. Frey, 95-1119 (La.1/16/96); .
  • Conerly v. State 690 So. 2d 980 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
    01/16/96), ; De Los Reyes v. USAA Casualty Insurance Co., 28,491 (La.App.2d Cir. 06/26/96), .
  • Jackson v. Town of Grambling 690 So. 2d 942 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
  • Hardenstein v. COOK CONST. INC. 691 So. 2d 177 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
    Hardenstein's reliance on Clement v. Frey, 95-1119 (La.1/16/96), , is misplaced.
  • Grant v. Allstate Insurance Co. 688 So. 2d 703 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
    The standard for reallocating fault was enunciated by the Supreme Court in Clement v. Frey, 95-1119, 95-1163, pp. 7-8 (La.1/16/96), , 611 where the court held: “ [a]fter 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.” In considering the factors outline
  • Maldonado v. Louisiana Superdome Com'n 687 So. 2d 1087 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
    Clement v. Frey, 95-1119, p. 7 (La.1/16/96), -11 .
  • Warren v. Campagna 686 So. 2d 969 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
    Clement v. Frey, 95-1119, 95-1163 (La.1/16/96), .
  • Rhodes v. State Through DOTD 684 So. 2d 1134 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    1/16/96), , (Lemmon, J., concurring), it was pointed out that "a de novo review, without any deference to the fact finder, is only appropriate when there is a legal error implicit in the fact finding process or when a mistake of law forecloses the fact finding process, such as when the fact finder's decision has been taint
  • Barsayage v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation & Development 686 So. 2d 957 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    “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 | ipdiscretion.” Clement v. Frey, 95-1119, 95-1163, p. 7-8 (La.1/16/96), .
  • Barsavage v. STATE DOTD 686 So. 2d 957 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    Clement v. Frey, 95-1119, 95-1163, p. 7-8 (La.1/16/96), .
  • Moore v. Safeway, Inc. 700 So. 2d 831 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
  • Carter v. Baham 683 So. 2d 299 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
    1 /16/96, -11 (reaffirming the Coco standard in the allocation of fault).
  • Farley v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation & Development 680 So. 2d 746 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
  • Ramirez v. Ware 680 So. 2d 1302 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
    Clement v. Frey, 95-1119 & 95-1163 (La.1/16/96), .
  • Cooper v. City of New Orleans 680 So. 2d 1259 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
  • Leatherman v. Riverside Village 676 So. 2d 1180 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    In Clement v. Frey, 95-1119, 95-1163 (La.1/16/96); , the Louisiana Supreme Court recently confirmed that the review of an allocation of comparative fault is governed by the standard set forth in Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Payton v. City of New Orleans 679 So. 2d 446 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
  • De Los Reyes v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co. 677 So. 2d 668 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
  • Landreneau v. Fruge 676 So. 2d 701 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
    1/16/96); , is inapplicable and this court could properly conduct a de novo review of fault.
  • Mix v. Krewe of Petronius 675 So. 2d 792 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
  • Jones v. Peyton Place, Inc. 675 So. 2d 754 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996