DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite In re Bernoudy, 885 So. 2d 534.

57 citing documents.

  • Scott Wesley Eastman, Et Ux v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2023
  • Alisa Alan Durkheimer v. Tranise L. Landry La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2023
    10/19/04), (alteration in original).
  • Bryan Arnold Richman, Jr. v. the Travelers Indemnity Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
    10/19/04), (citing Joseph v. Broussard Rice Mill, Inc., 00-0628, pp. 4-5 (La.10/30/00), ).
  • Jody Alan Goldstein v. Chateau Orleans, Inc., Leisure Management, Ltd., and Xyz Insurance Company La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2021
  • Elray and Brenda Lege v. Union Carbide Corporation La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2021
    10/19/04), )(internal citations omitted).
  • Crystal R. Bourque v. Tony Chachere's Creole Foods of Opelousas, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2020
  • Reginald Lewis, on Behalf of Robert Lewis, Jr. v. Cornerstone Hospital of Bossier City, LLC La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2019
    10/19/04), Moore v. IASIS Glenwood Reg’l Med.
  • Denee Ashley Pike and Trent Pike v. Calcasieu Parish School Board La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
    10/19/04), the 2 supreme court reinstated a jury’s selective award of damages in a medical malpractice matter, noting the interplay of credibility and assessment of quantum as follows: At the close of the evidence, the jury awarded plaintiff damages in th
  • Pike v. Calcasieu Parish Sch. Bd. 272 So. 3d 943 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
    10/19/04), , 539, the supreme court reinstated a jury's selective award of damages in a medical malpractice matter, noting the interplay of credibility and assessment of quantum as follows: At the close of the evidence, the jury awarded plaintiff damages in the amount of $ 52,901.79.
  • Myles v. Hosp. Serv. Dist. No. 1 of Tangipahoa Parish 248 So. 3d 545 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
    10/19/04), , 540 ("Because we have previously concluded [in reversing the JNOV] that the jury's verdict was reasonable in light of the evidence presented, we find that plaintiff is not entitled to a new trial."); Davis v. Witt, 2002-3102, p. 23 (La.
  • Marable v. Empire Truck Sales of Louisiana, LLC 221 So. 3d 880 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
  • Fuller v. D.L. Peterson Trust Co. 197 So. 3d 244 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
    Id.; Trunk v. Medical Center of Louisiana at New Orleans, 04-0181 (La.10/19/04), ; VaSalle, supra.
  • Pitts v. Louisiana Medical Mutual Insurance Co. 197 So. 3d 221 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    See Trunk v. Medical Center of Louisiana at New Orleans, 2004-0181, p. 11 (La.10/19/04), (“Because we have previously concluded [in reversing the JNOV] that the jury’s verdict was reasonable in light of the evidence presented, we find that plaintiff-is not entitled to a new trial.”); Davis v. Witt, 2002-3102, p. 23 (La.7/2/03), (“When any fair interpretation of the evidence suppo
  • Parvin Wesley Brown, Et Ux. v. State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
    10/19/04), set forth the standard of review for an appellate court when reviewing a JNOV granted by a trial court: 7 In reviewing a JNOV, an appellate court must first determine whether the district judge erred in granting the JNOV by using the abov
  • Brown v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation & Development 166 So. 3d 1197 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    This rigorous standard is based upon the principle that “[w]hen there is a jury, the jury is the trier of fact.” The Louisiana Supreme Court in Trunk v. Medical Center of Louisiana at New Orleans, 04-181, pp. 4-5 (La.10/19/04), , set forth the standard of review for an appellate court when reviewing a JNOV granted by a trial court: | sIn reviewing a JNOV, an appellate court must first determine whether the district judge erred in granting the JNOV by using the above-mentioned criteria in the sam
  • Stevenson v. Serth 169 So. 3d 612 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    Trunk v. Medical Center of Louisiana at New Orleans, 04-0181, p. 5 (La.10/19/04), .
  • Granger v. United Home Health Care 145 So. 3d 1071 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    1st Cir.2/20/02), ; see also Scott, 496 So.2d at 274-75 ; Trunk v. Medical Center of La., 04-0181 (La.10/19/04), ; Mason v. Hilton, 13-2073 (La.App.
  • Coulon v. Creel 142 So. 3d 79 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    at 498, citing Trunk v. Medical Center of Louisiana at New Orleans, 04-0181 (La.10/19/04), .
  • Kimberly Collins, Indiv., Etc. v. Louisiana State Police dept.of Public & Safety La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    10/19/04), set forth the standard of review for an appellate court when reviewing a JNOV granted by a trial court: In reviewing a JNOV, an appellate court must first determine whether the district judge erred in granting the JNOV by using the above- mentioned criteria in the same way as the district
  • Collins v. Louisiana State Police 158 So. 3d 17 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    This rigorous standard is based upon the principle that “[w]hen there is a jury, the jury is the trier of fact.” *22 The Louisiana Supreme Court in Trunk v. Medical Center of Louisiana at New Orleans, 04-181, pp. 4-5 (La.10/19/04), , set forth the standard of review for an appellate court when reviewing a JNOV granted by a trial court: In reviewing a JNOV, an appellate court must first determine whether the district judge erred in granting the JNOV by using the above-mentioned criteria in the sa
  • Board of Supervisors v. 1732 Canal Street, L.L.C. 159 So. 3d 470 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    Trunk v. Medical Center of Louisiana at New Orleans, 04-0181, p. 4 (La.10/19/04), *473 (citing Joseph v. Broussard Rice Mill, Inc., 00-0628, pp. 4-5 (La.10/30/00), ).
  • Corona v. Teaford 116 So. 3d 795 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    Trunk v. Medical Center of Louisiana at New Orleans, 04-0181, p. 11 (La.10/19/04), .
  • Brecheen v. News Group, L.P. 105 So. 3d 1011 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    at New Orleans, 04-0181, p. 4 (La.10/19/04), ).
  • Marcus Broussard, Jr. v. Martin Operating Partnership La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
    10/19/04), the supreme court again explained the standard under which a JNOV should be decided at the trial level: The use of JNOV is provided for by La.
  • Broussard v. Martin Operating Partnership 103 So. 3d 713 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    In Trunk v. Medical Center of Louisiana at New Orleans, 04-181, pp. 4-5, (La.10/19/04), , the supreme court again explained the standard under which a JNOV should be decided at the trial level: The use of JNOV is provided for by La.
  • Wood v. Humphries 103 So. 3d 1105 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    of Louisiana at New Orleans, 04-0181 (La.10/19/04), (“Because we have previously concluded [in reversing the JNOV] that the jury’s verdict was reasonable in light of the evidence presented, we find that plaintiff is not entitled to a new trial.”); Davis v. Witt, 02-3102 (La.7/2/03), (“When any fair interpretation of the evidence supports the j
  • Marroy v. Hertzak 77 So. 3d 307 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    Trunk v. Medical Center of Louisiana at New Orleans, 04-0181 (La.10/19/04), .
  • Joseph v. Archdiocese of New Orleans 52 So. 3d 203 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    4 Cir. 12/17/03), -81 (reversed on other grounds, 2004-0181 (La.10/19/04), ): [I]f there is substantial evidence of such quality and weight that reasonable persons might reach different conclusions, the motion must be denied, [citations omitted]....
  • Melba Lee See v. Entergy Corporation La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
  • See v. Entergy Corp. 24 So. 3d 267 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    No. 1, ).” Trunk v. Medical Center of Louisiana, 04-0181, p. 5 (La.10/19/04), .
  • Tina Smoot v. Ken Hernandez La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
    10/19/04), (quoting Joseph, 772 So.2d at 99).
  • Smoot v. Hernandez 6 So. 3d 352 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    of Louisiana at New Orleans, 04-181, p. 4 (La.10/19/04), (quoting Joseph, 772 So.2d at 99 ).
  • Forbes v. Cockerham 5 So. 3d 839 La. 2009
    art. 1811; [20] *858 see Trunk v. Medical Center of Louisiana at New Orleans, XXXX-XXXX, p. 5 (La.10/19/04), ; Joseph v. Broussard Rice Mill, Inc., XXXX-XXXX, p. 4-5 (La.
  • Wright v. Roscoe 996 So. 2d 73 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    10/19/04), (citing Wainwright v. Fontenot, 00-492 (La.
  • Forbes v. Cockerham 985 So. 2d 86 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
    See Trunk v. Medical Center of Louisiana at New Orleans, XXXX-XXXX, p. 11 (La.10/19/04), ("Because we have previously concluded [in reversing the JNOV] that the jury's verdict was reasonable in light of the evidence presented, we find that plaintiff is not entitled to a new trial"); Davis v. Witt, XXXX-XXXX, p. 23 (La.7/2/03), ("When any fair interpretation of the evidence suppor
  • Sher v. Lafayette Ins. Co. 973 So. 2d 39 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
    at New Orleans, 04-0181, p. 9 (La.10/19/04), , citing Wainwright v. Fontenot, 00-0492, p. 6 (La.10/17/00), .
  • SIGNAL v. Anderson 973 So. 2d 933 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
    Trunk v. Medical Center of Louisiana at New Orleans, 04-0181, pp. 4-5 (La.10/19/04), (citing Joseph v. Broussard Rice Mill, Inc., 00-0628, pp. 4-5 (La.10/30/00), ).
  • Pena v. Delchamps, Inc. 960 So. 2d 988 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
    at New Orleans, 04-0181, p. 9 *996 (La.10/19/04); , citing Wainwright v. Fontenot, 00-0492, p. 6 (La.10/17/00); .
  • Chaisson v. Avondale Industries, Inc. 947 So. 2d 171 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2007
    at New Orleans, 04-0181, p. 9 (La.10/19/04), , citing Wainwright v. Fontenot, 00-0492, p. 6 (La.10/17/00), .
  • Gerald W. Greer v. State of La., Dotd La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    10/19/04), Duchamp v. State Farm Mut.
  • Greer v. State, ex rel. Department of Transportation & Development 941 So. 2d 141 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
    at New Orleans, 04-181, pp. 4-5 (La.10/19/04), ; Duchamp v. State Farm Mut.
  • Greer v. STATE EX REL. DEPT. OF TRANSP. 941 So. 2d 141 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    at New Orleans, 04-181, pp. 4-5 (La.10/19/04), ; Duchamp v. State Farm Mut.
  • Arseneaux v. Gray Ins. Co. 943 So. 2d 521 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
    Trunk v. Medical Center of Louisiana at New Orleans, 04-0181, p. 5 (La.10/19/04), (citing Joseph v. Broussard Rice Mill, Inc., 00-0628, pp. 4-5 (La.10/30/00), ); Smith , 04-1317 at p. 13, 899 So.2d at 525 .
  • Norfleet v. LIFEGUARD TRANSP. SERVICE, INC. 934 So. 2d 846 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
    at New Orleans, 04-0181, p. 9 (La.10/19/04); , citing Wainwright v. Fontenot, 00-0492, p. 6 (La.10/17/00); .
  • June Cockerham v. Lasalle Nursing Home, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    10/19/04), the supreme court explained that: [A] JNOV is warranted when the facts and inferences point so strongly and overwhelmingly in favor of one party that the trial court believes that reasonable persons could not arrive at a contrary verdict.
  • Cockerham v. LaSalle Nursing Home, Inc. 930 So. 2d 239 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    In Trunk v. Medical Center of Louisiana at New Orleans, 04-0181, pp. 4-5 (La.10/19/04), , the supreme court explained that: [A] JNOV is warranted when the facts and inferences point so strongly and overwhelmingly in favor of one party that the trial court believes that reasonable persons could not arrive at a contrary verdict.
  • Parker v. Robinson 925 So. 2d 646 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
    In Trunk v. Medical Center of Louisiana at New Orleans, XXXX-XXXX (La.10/19/04), , the Louisiana Supreme Court reinstated a jury verdict awarding $35,000.00 in general damages to a plaintiff who suffered from ligament injuries to her left wrist that required surgery and from carpal tunnel syndrome.
  • Bell v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. 927 So. 2d 492 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
    10/19/04), , citing Joseph v. Broussard Rice Mill, Inc., 00-0628, pp. 4-5 (La.10/30/00), ; see also VaSalle v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 01-0462, p. 11 (La.11/28/01), -39 .
  • In Re Gramercy Plant Explosion at Kaiser 927 So. 2d 492 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
    Trunk v. Medical Center of Louisiana at New Orleans, 04-0181, p. 4 (La.10/19/04), , citing Joseph v. Broussard Rice Mill, Inc., 00-0628, pp. 4-5 (La.10/30/00), ; see also VaSalle v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 01-0462, p. 11 (La.11/28/01), -39 .
  • Cobb v. Delta Exports, Inc. 918 So. 2d 1080 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    Center of Louisiana, 04-181 (La.10/19/04), .