DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Cormier v. Comeaux, 748 So. 2d 1123.

67 citing documents.

  • Woods v. STATE, DOTD 852 So. 2d 1109 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
    DISCUSSION In Cormier v. Comeaux, 1998-2378 (La.7/7/99), , the supreme court explained the standard of review for appellate courts examining the jury's findings of fact.
  • Temple v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation & Development 858 So. 2d 569 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    DOTD has no duty to conform to post-construction standards, such as AASHTO, but does have a duty to correct conditions on old roadways “that are unreasonably dangerous.” Cormier v. Comeaux, 98-2378, pp. 9-10 & 13 (La.7/7/99), 1131 .
  • Temple v. STATE EX REL. DOTD 858 So. 2d 569 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    Cormier v. Comeaux, 98-2378, pp. 9-10 & 13 (La.7/7/99), 1131 .
  • Capone v. Ormet Corp. 822 So. 2d 684 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    (Emphasis added) In Cormier v. Comeaux, 98-2378 (La.7/7/99), , the driver of a vehicle apparently went to sleep, drove off the roadway across the shoulder and into the back embankment of the roadside ditch.
  • Petre v. State Ex Rel. DOTD 817 So. 2d 1107 La. 2002
    Citing Cormier v. Comeaux, 98-2378 (La.7/7/99), , DOTD argues that its duty to maintain safe highways does not encompass the risk that an intoxicated driver will drive off of the road and strike a clearly visible obstacle.
  • Vallien v. State Ex Rel. Dept. of Transp. and Dev. 812 So. 2d 894 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
    C[o]rmier v. Comeaux, 98-2378, pp. 5-6 (La.7/7/99); ; Netecke v. State ex rel.
  • Johnson Ex Rel. Johnson v. Dumas 811 So. 2d 1085 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
    *1093 Cormier v. Comeaux, 98-2378, p. 6 (La.7/7/99), , citing Brown v. Louisiana Indem.
  • Rosen v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation & Development 809 So. 2d 498 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    Although DOTD does not have a duty to bring old highways up to modern AASH-TO standards absent a major reconstruction of that highway, as explained by the Supreme Court in Cormier v. Comeaux, 98-2378, p. 9 (La.7/7/99), , whether DOTD has conformed to those | ^standards is a relevant factor in determining the ultimate issue of whether the roadway is unreasonably dangerous.
  • Cox v. Moore 805 So. 2d 277 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
    Cormier v. Comeaux, 98-2378 (La.7/7/99); .
  • Abadie v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. 804 So. 2d 11 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
    Rosell v. ESCO, supra; Cormier v. Comeaux, 98-2378 (La.7/7/99), .
  • Daspit v. Barber 786 So. 2d 962 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
    Cormier v. Comeaux, 98-2378 (La.7/8/98), .
  • Perkins v. Entergy Corp. 782 So. 2d 606 La. 2001
    Cormier v. Comeaux, 98-2378, (La.7/7/99), (emphasis added).
  • Coleman v. Riley 780 So. 2d 1071 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    Generally, an appellate court may not set aside a trial court’s or jury’s finding of fact in the absence of “manifest error” or unless it is “clearly wrong.” Cormier v. Comeaux, 98-2378 (La.7/7/99), , quoting Stobart v. State, Department of Transportation and Development
  • Odom v. City of Lake Charles 790 So. 2d 51 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
    Cormier v. Comeaux, 98-2378 (La.7/7/99); .
  • Huang v. BD. OF TRUSTEES FOR STATE COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES 781 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    Cormier v. Comeaux, 98-2378 (La.07/07/99), , rehearing denied (La.9/3/99), citing Stobart v. State Through Dept. of Transp.
  • Ford v. STATE, EX REL. DOTD 760 So. 2d 478 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
    Cannier v. Comeaux, 98-2378, pp. 5-6 (La.7/7/99); ; Netecke v. State ex rel.
  • Sevario v. State Ex Rel. Dept. of Transp. 752 So. 2d 221 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    Cormier v. Comeaux, 98-2378, pp. 5-6 (La.7/7/99), , Faulkner, 645 So.2d at 273 .