Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite May v. Jones, 634 So. 2d 832.

17 citing documents.

Justiss Oil Company, Inc. v. Oil Country Tubular Corporation La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
1 Cir.1993), writ denied, 93–3118 (La.2/11/94)
Justiss Oil Co. v. Oil Country Tubular Corp. 216 So. 3d 346 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
Hoffmann v. B & G, Inc. 215 So. 3d 273 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
Blair v. Bad Boy Inc. 137 So. 3d 1223 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
1 Cir. 1993), writ denied, 93-3118 (La.2/11/94), .
Jerrl L. Thompson v. Haralampos Rizos La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
Pratt v. Himel Marine, Inc. 823 So. 2d 394 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
1st Cir.1993), writ denied, 93-3118 (La.2/11/94), .
Morrison v. Allstar Dodge, Inc. 792 So. 2d 9 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
1st Cir.1993), writ denied, 93-3118 (La.2/11/94), .
Explained Encalade v. Coast Quality Const. Corp. 772 So. 2d 244 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
1st Cir.1993), writ denied, 93-3118 (La.2/11/94), .
Magee v. Pittman 761 So. 2d 731 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
1st Cir.1993), writ denied, 93-3121 (La.2/11/94), .
McNeely v. Ford Motor Co., Inc. 763 So. 2d 659 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
1 Cir.1993), writ denied, 93-3118 (La.2/11/94), .
Crow v. Laurie 729 So. 2d 703 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
1 Cir.1993), writ denied, 93-3118 (La.2/11/94), .
Jackson v. Slidell Nissan 693 So. 2d 1257 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
1st Cir.1993), writ denied, 93-3118 (La.2/11/94), .
Fly v. Allstar Ford Lincoln Mercury, Inc. 690 So. 2d 759 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
STATE DEPT. OF TRANSP. & DEV. v. Scramuzza 673 So. 2d 1249 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1996
1 Cir.1993), writ denied
Chaudoir v. Porsche Cars of North America 667 So. 2d 569 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
App. 1 Cir.1993), writ denied, 93-C-3118 (La.2/11/94), .
Doe v. Doe 657 So. 2d 628 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Porche v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc. 644 So. 2d 699 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
2/11/94); , this court discussed the standard when granting a JNOV, and stated: [W]ith a motion for JNOV a trial judge can grant that motion, `only when the evidence points so strongly and overwhelmingly in favor of the moving party that reasonable men could not reach a contrary verdict.'