DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Franks v. Department of Highways for Louisiana, 43 So. 2d 491.

20 citing documents.

  • Narcisse v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 228 So. 2d 186 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
    Co., La.App., ; Frank v. Department of Highways for Louisiana, La.App., ; Driggers v. Coal Operators Casualty Co., La.App., ; Higgs v. Monroe, La.App., .
  • Martin v. Westchester Fire Insurance Co. 183 So. 2d 769 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
    Co., La.App., ; Franks v. Department of Highways for Louisiana, La.App., ; Driggers v. Coal Operators Casualty Co., La.App., ; Higgs v. Monroe, La.App., .
  • Brister v. Great American Insurance 171 So. 2d 769 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
    ntainer Corp., : “ * * * This is subject to the further condition that there is nothing to discredit the plaintiff’s account of the accident and the resulting disability and his statements are supported by the surrounding circumstances.” See also Guilbeaux v. Trinity Universal Insurance Co., La.App., (3 Cir.1961); Franks v. Department of Highways for Louisiana, La.App., ; O’Connor v. American Automobile Insurance Co., La.App., .
  • Olano v. Rex Milling Co. 154 So. 2d 555 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
    Co., La.App., ; Franks v. Department of Highways for Louisiana, La.App., ; Driggers v. Coal Operators Casualty Co., La.App., ; Higgs v. Monroe, La.
  • Laurant v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York 150 So. 2d 314 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
    Rider v. R. P. Farnsworth, La.App., ; *317 Franks v. Department of Highways for Louisiana, La.App., .
  • Brown v. Crocker 139 So. 2d 779 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1962
    Co., La.App., ; Franks v. Department of Highways for Louisiana, La.App., ; Driggers v. Coal Operators Casualty Co., La.App., ; Higgs v. Monroe, La.
  • Castle v. Graves 138 So. 2d 879 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
    2d Cir., 1949), , in which we made some reference to this distinction.
  • Guilbeaux v. Trinity Universal Insurance Company 134 So. 2d 717 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
    App., ; O'Connor v. American Automobile Insurance Co., La.App., .'" And, , the Court states at page 492: "We concede the proposition urged by learned counsel for plaintiff to the effect that there is precedent in our jurisprudence for the application of the gene
  • Sneed v. Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Co. 126 So. 2d 421 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
    2d Cir., 1949, , 492: “We concede the proposition urged by learned counsel for plaintiff to the effect that there is precedent in our jurisprudence for the application of the general principle that the testimony of a plaintiff alone is sufficient to make out his case, but only, as was well stated in Dolhonde v. Gullett Gin Co., La.A
  • Broussard v. Dumas Chevrolet Company 120 So. 2d 863 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
    See Dolhonde v. Gullett Gin Co., La.App., ; Johnson v. Brown Paper Mill Co., Inc., La.App., ; Franks v. Department of Highways for Louisiana, La.App., ; Sims v. Brown Paper Industries, Inc., La.App., ; Johnson v. Andrus, La.App., ; Zito v. Standard Accident Insurance Co., La.App., ; Touchet v. Coal Operators Casualty Co., La.App., ; Roy v. Guillot, La.App., ; Roy v. Manufacturers Casualty Insurance Co.
  • Wilson v. Standard Accident Insurance 92 So. 2d 781 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
    Co., La.App., ; Franks v. Department of Highways for Louisiana, La.App., ; Driggers v. Coal Operators Casualty Co., La.App., ; Higgs v. Monroe, La.App., .
  • Holmes v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co. 91 So. 2d 90 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
    arbrough, La.App., ; Verbois v. Standard Accident Co., La.App., ; Dolhonde v. Gullett Gin Co., La.App., ; Cascio v. Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey, La.App., ; O’Connor v. American Automobile Insurance Co., La.App., ; Johnson v. Brown Paper Mill Co., Inc., La.App., ; Franks v. Department of Highways for Louisiana, La.App., .” There are many other cases in our jurisprudence with the same holding.
  • Richardson v. Tunica Hardwood Co. 81 So. 2d 470 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
    As is true in other civil cases, the plaintiff in a Workmen’s Compensation suit must bear the burden of proof, and as stated in Franks v. Department of Highways, La.App., , 493: “The burden of proof in these cases is upon the plaintiff, and, further, as has been declared in a long line of cases, it is not sufficient for a claimant to make out a case that is merely probable, but it is required that he establish it with legal certainty; Spears v. Brown Paper Mill Co., La.App.
  • Dowden v. State ex rel. Department of Highways 81 So. 2d 48 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1955
    stresses that the award was excessive, and calls attention to the jurisprudence that the burden is upon plaintiff to establish his claims to a legal certainty and by a reasonable preponderance of the evidence, and that speculation, conjecture, mere possibility and even unsupported probability are not sufficient to support a judgment, citing Franks v. Department of Highways for Louisiana, La.App., ; Roberts v. M. S. Carroll Co., Inc., La.App., ; Driggers v. Coal Operators Casualty Co., La.App., ,
  • Dowden v. STATE, DEPT. OF HWYS. 81 So. 2d 48 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1955
    stresses that the award was excessive, and calls attention to the jurisprudence that the burden is upon plaintiff to establish his claims to a legal certainty and by a reasonable preponderance of the evidence, and that speculation, conjecture, mere possibility and even unsupported probability are not sufficient to support a judgment, citing Franks v. Department of Highways for Louisiana, La.App., ; Roberts v. M. S. Carroll Co., Inc., La.App., 68 So.
  • Higgs v. Monroe 77 So. 2d 555 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
    In the latter case, we quoted from Franks v. Department of Highways for Louisiana, La.App., , where it was stated: “The burden of proof in these cases is upon the plaintiff, and, further, as has been declared in a long line of cases, it is not sufficient for a claimant to make out a case that is merely probable, but it is required that he establish it with legal certainty; Spears v. Brown Paper Mill Co.
  • Zito v. Standard Accident Insurance Co. 76 So. 2d 25 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
    arbrough, La.App., ; Verbois v. Standard Accident Co., La.App., ; Dolhonde v. Gullett Gin Co., La.App., ; Cascio v. Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey, La.App., ; O'Connor v. American Automobile Insurance Co., La.App., ; Johnson v. Brown Paper Mill Co., Inc., La.App., ; Franks v. Department of Highways for Louisiana, La.App., .
  • Driggers v. Coal Operators Casualty Co. 73 So. 2d 602 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1954
    This court said in Franks v. Department of Highways for Louisiana, La.App., , 493: "The burden of proof in these cases is upon the plaintiff, and, further, as has been declared in a long line of cases, it is not sufficient for a claimant to make out a case that is merely probable, but it is required that he establish it with legal certainty; Spears v. Brown Paper Mill Co., La.App., 9 So.
  • Garrett v. Gaylord Container Corp. 71 So. 2d 373 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
    See Franks v. Dept. of Highways for Louisiana, La.App., ; O’Connor v. American Automobile Insurance Co., La.App., .
  • Roberts v. MS Carroll Co. 68 So. 2d 689 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1953
    Co., La.App., ; Nesom v. Caldwell & McCann, La.App., ; Price v. Blythe Bros., La.App., ; Palmer v. Penton Lumber Co., Inc., La.App., ; Franks v. Department of Highways, La.App., ; Cook v. M. J. Walsh Boiler Scaling Co. Inc., La.App., ; Pierce v. Delta Tank Mfg.