Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
27 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2024 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Louisiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Brown v. Whitegreen2 sentences2014Thus, on appellate review of a jury trial the mere discovery of an error in the judge’s instructions does not of itself justify the appellate court conducting the equivalent of a trial de novo, without first measuring the gravity or degree of error and considering the instructions as a whole and the circumstances of the case. | Adams, supra at 804-05 ; Brown v. White, 405 So.2d 555, 560 (La.App. 4th Cir.1981), rev’d on other grounds on reh’g, 430 So.2d 16 (La.1983). 2009Brown, 405 So.2d at 558 . | 2 | 6 |
Simmons v. Hope Contractors, Inc.green2 sentences2002Wisner v. Illinois Central Gulf Railroad, 537 So.2d 740, 749 (La.App. 1st Cir.1988), citing, Simmons v. Hope Contractors, Inc., 517 So.2d 333, 337 (La.App. 1st Cir.1987). 1990Simmons v. Hope Contractors, Inc., 517 So.2d 333 (La.App. 1st Cir.1987), writ denied, 518 So.2d 510 (La.1988). | 2 | 4 |
Lincecum v. Missouri Pacific RR Co.green2 sentences2002Lincecum v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, 452 So.2d 1182, 1190 (La.App. 1 Cir.), writ denied, 458 So.2d 476 (La.1984). 2002Lincecum v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, 452 So.2d 1182, 1190 (La.App. 1 Cir.), writ denied, 458 So.2d 476 (La.1984). | 2 | 3 |
Wooley v. Lucksingergreen2 sentences2024Id., 09-0571, p. 82-83, 61 So. 3d at 575 . 2019Wooley, 61 So. 3d at 575 ( quoting Adams v. Rhodia, Inc., 2007- 2110 ( La. 5/ 21/ 08), 983 So. 2d 798, 805 ). | 1 | 2 |
Belle Pass Terminal, Inc. v. Jolin, Inc.green1 sentence2023See also Belle Pass Terminal, Inc. v. Jolin, Inc., 634 So.2d 466 (La. | 1 | 1 |
Wisner v. Illinois Cent. Gulf RRgreen1 sentence2002Wisner v. Illinois Central Gulf Railroad, 537 So.2d 740, 749 (La.App. 1st Cir.1988), citing, Simmons v. Hope Contractors, Inc., 517 So.2d 333, 337 (La.App. 1st Cir.1987). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Adams v. Rhodia, Inc.
green
2 sentences2023Detraz v. Lee, 05-1263 (La. 1/17/07), 950 So.2d 557, 563 . “[T]he manifest error standard for appellate review may not be ignored unless the jury charges were so incorrect or so inadequate as to preclude the jury from reaching a verdict based on the law and facts.” Adams, 983 So.2d at 805 . “[T]he mere discovery of an error in the judge’s instructions does not of itself justify the appellate court conducting the equivalent of a trial de novo, without first measuring the gravity or degree of error and considering the instructions as a whole and the circumstances of the case.” Id. 2023Detraz v. Lee, 05-1263 (La. 1/17/07), 950 So.2d 557, 563 . “[T]he manifest error standard for appellate review may not be ignored unless the jury charges were so incorrect or so inadequate as to preclude the jury from reaching a verdict based on the law and facts.” Adams, 983 So.2d at 805 . “[T]he mere discovery of an error in the judge’s instructions does not of itself justify the appellate court conducting the equivalent of a trial de novo, without first measuring the gravity or degree of error and considering the instructions as a whole and the circumstances of the case.” Id. | 9 | 2009–2023 |
Laborde v. Velsicol Chemical Corp.
green
2 sentences2003Id. at 1324 . 1986The `... standard of appellate review is that the mere discovery of an error in the trial judge's instructions does not itself justify the appellate court conducting a trial de novo, without first measuring the gravity or degree of error and considering the instructions as a whole and the circumstances of the case.'" (Citations omitted.) Laborde v. Velsicol Chemical Corp., 474 So.2d 1320 , at page 1324 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1985). | 3 | 1986–2003 |
Simmons v. Simmons
green
2 sentences2002Lincecum v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, 452 So.2d 1182, 1190 (La.App. 1 Cir.), writ denied, 458 So.2d 476 (La.1984). 2002Lincecum v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, 452 So.2d 1182, 1190 (La.App. 1 Cir.), writ denied, 458 So.2d 476 (La.1984). | 3 | 2001–2002 |
Brown v. White
green
2 sentences2014Thus, on appellate review of a jury trial the mere discovery of an error in the judge’s instructions does not of itself justify the appellate court conducting the equivalent of a trial de novo, without first measuring the gravity or degree of error and considering the instructions as a whole and the circumstances of the case. | Adams, supra at 804-05 ; Brown v. White, 405 So.2d 555, 560 (La.App. 4th Cir.1981), rev’d on other grounds on reh’g, 430 So.2d 16 (La.1983). 1995Brown v. White, 405 So.2d 555, 558 (La.App. 4th Cir.1981) (emphasis added; citations omitted), aff'd, 430 So.2d 16 (La.1982). | 2 | 1995–2014 |
Bustamante v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
green
2 sentences1990Simmons v. Hope Contractors, Inc., 517 So.2d 333 (La.App. 1st Cir.1987), writ denied, 518 So.2d 510 (La.1988). 1990Simmons v. Hope Contractors, Inc., 517 So.2d 333 (La.App. 1st Cir.1987), writ denied, 518 So.2d 510 (La.1988); Mitchell v. Fire and Cas. | 2 | 1990–1990 |
Detraz v. Lee
green
1 sentence2023Detraz v. Lee, 05-1263 (La. 1/17/07), 950 So.2d 557, 563 . “[T]he manifest error standard for appellate review may not be ignored unless the jury charges were so incorrect or so inadequate as to preclude the jury from reaching a verdict based on the law and facts.” Adams, 983 So.2d at 805 . “[T]he mere discovery of an error in the judge’s instructions does not of itself justify the appellate court conducting the equivalent of a trial de novo, without first measuring the gravity or degree of error and considering the instructions as a whole and the circumstances of the case.” Id. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Rosell v. Esco
green
1 sentence2011However, we find this distinction does not change the Adams analysis: “On appellate review of a jury trial the mere discovery of an error in [or about the manner of] the judge’s instructions does not of itself justify the appellate court conducting the equivalent of a trial de novo, without first measuring the gravity or degree of error and considering the instructions as a whole and the circumstances of the ease.” Id., 2007-2110 p. 7-8, 983 So.2d at 805 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Jones v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.
green
1 sentence1997Jones v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, supra. Having concluded that the jury charges were not so incorrect or inadequate as to preclude the jury from reaching a verdict based on the law and facts, we now conduct a review based on the manifest error standard. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Haydel v. Hercules Transport, Inc.
green
1 sentence1996Daigle v. Legendre, 619 So.2d 836 (La.App. 1 Cir.), writ denied, 625 So.2d 1040 (La.1993); Haydel v. Hercules Transport, Inc., 94-1246 (La.App. 1 Cir. 4/7/95) , 654 So.2d 418 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Daigle v. Legendre
green
1 sentence1996Daigle v. Legendre, 619 So.2d 836 (La.App. 1 Cir.), writ denied, 625 So.2d 1040 (La.1993); Haydel v. Hercules Transport, Inc., 94-1246 (La.App. 1 Cir. 4/7/95) , 654 So.2d 418 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Daigle v. Legendre
neutral
1 sentence1996Daigle v. Legendre, 619 So.2d 836 (La.App. 1 Cir.), writ denied, 625 So.2d 1040 (La.1993); Haydel v. Hercules Transport, Inc., 94-1246 (La.App. 1 Cir. 4/7/95) , 654 So.2d 418 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Laborde v. Velsicol Chemical Corp.
green
1 sentence1995Laborde v. Velsicol Chemical Corp., 474 So.2d 1320 (La.App. 3 Cir.1985), writ denied, 480 So.2d 738 (La.1986); Lincecum v. Missouri Pacific R. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.