730 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2026 91 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Lovegreen2 sentences2016As such, a Louisiana appellate court “generally review[s] trial court rulings on motions to quash under an abuse-of-discretion standard.” State v. Brown, 15-1319, p. 7 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/20/16), 193 So.3d 267, 271 , citing State v. Love, 00-3347, pp, 9-10 (La. 5/23/03), 847 So.2d 1198 , 1206 and State v. Batiste, 05-1571 (La. 10/17/06), 939 So.2d 1245 . 2015Typically, appellate courts apply an abuse of discretion standard in reviewing a district court’s ruling on a motion to quash; see, State v. Love, 2000-3347 (La.5/23/03), 847 So.2d 1198 . | 19 | 32 |
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.green2 sentences2012If the award is not manifestly erroneous, it is reviewed under the constraints of Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., 341 So.2d 332 (La.1976), i.e., the abuse of discretion standard of review. 2008When a trial court has granted a JNOV on the issues of damages and has conducted its own independent assessment of the damages as trier of fact, that decision becomes the judgment of the trial court and we review that decision on appeal under the abuse of discretion standard as set forth in Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., 341 So.2d 332 (La.1976). | 11 | 31 |
Youn v. Maritime Overseas Corp.green2 sentences2024C.C. art. 2324.1 (providing that “[i]n the assessment of damages in cases of offenses, quasi offenses, and quasi contracts, much discretion must be left to the judge or jury”); Cone v. National Emergency Services, Inc., 99-0934, p. 8 (La. 10/29/99), 747 So.2d 1085, 1089 (citing Youn v. Maritime Overseas Corp., 623 So.2d 1257 (La.1993) (holding that an abuse of discretion standard applies to the review of general damage awards)). 2021“Accordingly, appellate courts review general damage awards using the abuse of discretion standard.” Id. (citing Youn, 623 So.2d 1257, 1260 (La. 1993)). | 11 | 22 |
State v. Trangreen2 sentences2015See State v. Hall, 13-0453, p. 11 (La.App. 4 Cir. 10/9/13), 127 So.3d 30, 38-39 ; cf. State v. Tran, 12-1219, p. 2, n. 3 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/24/13), 115 So.3d 672, 673 (rulings on motions to quash involving mixed questions of law and fact are reviewed under an abuse-of-discretion standard). 2014In cases involving other types of motions to quash involving factual determinations— such as speedy trial violations and nolle prosequi dismissal-reinstitution cases— this court applies an abuse of discretion standard. [State v.] M.C., 10-1107 at p. 10, 60 So.3d [1264] at 1270 [ (La.App. 4 Cir.2011) ]; see also State v. Tran, 12-1219, p. 2 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/24/13), 115 So.3d 672, 673, n. 3 (explaining that “[i]n reviewing rulings on motions to quash where there are mixed questions of fact as well as law, as here, a trial judge’s ruling on a motion to quash is discretionary and should not be di | 11 | 12 |
State v. Hallgreen2 sentences2016See also State v. Hall, 13-0453, pp. 11-12 (La.App. 4 Cir. 10/9/13) , 127 So.3d 30, 39 (in cases where motions to quash involve factual 'determinations— such as speedy trial violations and nolle prosequi dismissal-reinstitution cases — this court applies an abuse of discretion standard.) The Defendant’s assertion that the State’s delay in filing the multiple bill was unreasonable is based upon the following procedural history: UOn January 12, 2012, the day Defendant was found guilty, a multiple bill hearing was set for March 2, 2012. 4 The multiple bill hearing was thereafter delayed on numero 2015See State v. Hall, 13-0453, p. 11 (La.App. 4 Cir. 10/9/13), 127 So.3d 30, 38-39 ; cf. State v. Tran, 12-1219, p. 2, n. 3 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/24/13), 115 So.3d 672, 673 (rulings on motions to quash involving mixed questions of law and fact are reviewed under an abuse-of-discretion standard). | 6 | 9 |
| State v. Hendersongreen | 6 | 6 |
State v. Wellsgreen2 sentences2023State v. Wells, 08- 2262, p. 5 (La. 7/6/10), 45 So.3d 577, 581 . 2015It is well-settled that “appellate courts review a trial court’s ruling under a deferential standard with regard to factual determinations, while legal findings are subject to a de novo standard of review.” Id. at p. 4, 45 So.3d at 580 (citations omitted). “ ‘[0]n mixed questions of law and fact, the appellate court reviews the underlying facts on an abuse of discretion standard, but reviews conclusions to be drawn from those facts de novo.’ ” State v. Anderson, 2006-1031, p. 2 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1/17/07), 949 So.2d 544, 546 (quoting State v. Pham, 2001-2199, p. 3 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1/22/03), 839 So | 5 | 8 |
Bouquet v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.green2 sentences2020“The standard of review applicable to a general damages award is the abuse of discretion standard.” Bouquet v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2008-0309, p. 4 (La. 4/4/08), 979 So.2d 456, 459 (citing Anderson v. Welding Testing Lab, Inc., 304 So.2d 351, 353 , (La. 1974)). 2017The Louisiana Supreme Court in Bouquet v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 08-0309, pp. 4-5 (La. 4/4/08), 979 So.2d 456, 459 , noted the standard of review applicable to a general damages award as follows: The standard of review applicable to a general damages award is the abuse of discretion standard. | 4 | 14 |
| State v. Dillongreen | 4 | 6 |
State v. Batistegreen2 sentences2016As such, a Louisiana appellate court “generally review[s] trial court rulings on motions to quash under an abuse-of-discretion standard.” State v. Brown, 15-1319, p. 7 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/20/16), 193 So.3d 267, 271 , citing State v. Love, 00-3347, pp, 9-10 (La. 5/23/03), 847 So.2d 1198 , 1206 and State v. Batiste, 05-1571 (La. 10/17/06), 939 So.2d 1245 . 2015Typically, appellate review of a district court’s.ruling on,a motion to qqash is accomplished under an abuse of discretion standard; see, e.g., State v. Batiste, 2005-1571 (La.10/17/06), 939 So.2d 1245 . | 3 | 10 |
State v. Guillorygreen2 sentences2025State v. Guillory, [20]10-1231, p. 4 (La. 10/8/10), 45 So.3d 612 , 615. 2015At the outset, we note that in State v. Guillory, 10-1231 (La.10/8/10), 45 So.3d 612 , the supreme court noted that previous jurisprudence conflicted as to whether a trial court’s ruling on a motion for new trial under La.Code Crim.P. art. 851(5) presented a question of law reviewable under an abuse of discretion standard. | 3 | 8 |
Cheairs v. State Ex Rel. DOTDgreen2 sentences2023Id., 2010- 1685, 2011-0220 at p.6, 74 So.3d at 1205 ; see also Cheairs v. State Dep't. of Transp. and Dev., 2003-0680 (La. 12/3/03), 861 So.2d 536 . 2020Id. at 1205 ; see also Cheairs v. State Dep't. of Transp. and Dev., 2003-0680 (La. 12/3/03), 861 So.2d 536 . | 3 | 8 |
| State v. Browngreen | 3 | 3 |
Anderson v. Welding Testing Laboratory, Inc.green2 sentences2020“The standard of review applicable to a general damages award is the abuse of discretion standard.” Bouquet v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2008-0309, p. 4 (La. 4/4/08), 979 So.2d 456, 459 (citing Anderson v. Welding Testing Lab, Inc., 304 So.2d 351, 353 , (La. 1974)). 2013Martin Lumber Co., Inc., 363 So.2d 506, 507 (La.1978); Anderson v. Welding Testing Lab., Inc., 304 So.2d 351, 352 (La.1974). [[Image here]] An appellate court reviews a trial court’s general damage award using the abuse of discretion standard. | 2 | 7 |
| Autin v. Voronkovagreen | 2 | 5 |
| Cone v. National Emergency Services, Inc.green | 2 | 5 |
| Anderson v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc.green | 2 | 5 |
| Banks v. New York Life Ins. Co.green | 2 | 4 |
| Aeb v. Jbegreen | 2 | 3 |
State v. Phamgreen2 sentences2025“Accordingly, on mixed questions of law and fact, the appellate court reviews the underlying facts on an abuse of discretion standard, but reviews conclusions to be drawn from those facts de novo.” Id. 2023App. 4 Cir. 1/22/03), 839 So.2d 214, 218 .) “Accordingly, on mixed questions of law and fact, the appellate court reviews the underlying facts on an abuse of discretion standard, but reviews conclusions to be drawn from those facts de novo.” Id. | 1 | 19 |
Wainwright v. Fontenotgreen2 sentences2014This rigorous standard is based upon the principle that when there is a jury, the jury is the trier of fact. | u“There is no question that the abuse of discretion standard of review applies when an appellate court examines a fact finder’s award of general damages.” Wainwright v. Fontenot, 2000-0492 (La.10/17/00), 774 So.2d 70, 74 . 2013“There is no question that the abuse of discretion standard of review applies when an appellate court examines a factfinder’s award of general damages.” Wainwright v. Fontenot, 2000-0492 (La.10/17/00); 774 So.2d 70, 74 . | 1 | 19 |
Covington v. McNeese State Universitygreen2 sentences2026In reviewing an award under the abuse of discretion standard, “the role of the reviewing court is not to determine what it considers to be an appropriate award, but rather it is to review the exercise of discretion by the trier of fact.” Covington v. McNeese State University, 2012-2182, p. 11 (La. 5/7/13), 118 So.3d 343, 351 . 2026Under the abuse of discretion standard, “the role of the reviewing court is not to determine what it considers to be an appropriate award, but rather it is to review the exercise of discretion by the trier of fact.” Covington v. McNeese State Univ., 12-2182, p. 11 (La. 5/7/13), 118 So.3d 343, 351 . | 1 | 12 |
Brooks v. Union Pacific Railroadgreen2 sentences2014The defendants further aver that, even if the trial court was within its discretion as to only one of the deficiencies it found in the plaintiffs’ proof, its judgment must be affirmed. | ^STANDARD OF REVIEW In Price v. Martin, 11-0853, pp. 7-8 (La.12/6/11), 79 So.3d 960, 967 , the Louisiana Supreme Court explained the standard of review to be applied by the appellate court when reviewing a trial court’s determination of whether to certify a class: In reviewing a judgment on class certification, the district court’s factual findings are subject to the manifest error standard, which the court’s 2013STANDARD OF REVIEW The Louisiana Supreme Court in Price v. Martin, 11-0853, pp. 7-8 (La.12/6/11), 79 So.3d 960 , 967 explained: In reviewing a judgment on class certification, the district court’s factual findings are subject to the manifest error standard, while the court’s ultimate decision regarding whether to certify the class is reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard. [Brooks v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 08-2035, p. 10 (La.5/22/09), 13 So.3d 546, 554 .] Whether the district court applied the correct legal standard in determining whether to certify the class is reviewed de novo. | 1 | 10 |
Lumley v. Hogsettgreen2 sentences2016See Youn v. Maritime Overseas Corp., 623 So.2d 1257, 1260 (La.1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1114 , 114 S.Ct. 1059 , 127 L.Ed.2d 379 (1994). 2011We review an award of damages under the abuse of discretion standard, and in doing so, we must recognize that “the discretion vested in the trier of fact is ‘great,’ and even vast.” Youn v. Maritime Overseas Corp., 628 So.2d 1257, 1261 (La.1993), ce rt. denied, 510 U.S. 1114 , 114 S.Ct. 1059 , 127 L.Ed.2d 379 (1994). | 1 | 8 |
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.green2 sentences2016Id., 526 U.S. at 148 , 119 S.Ct. at 1174 . ' Ultimately, “the trial judge must determine whether the testimony has ‘a reliable basis in knowledge and experience of [the relevant] discipline.’ ” Id., 526 U.S. at 153 , 119 S.Ct. at 1175 (quoting Daubert, 509 U.S. at 592 , 113 S.Ct. at 2796 ). “[W]hether ’ Daubert’s specific factors are, or are not reasonable measures of reliability ... is a matter that ... the trial- judge [has] broad latitude to determine,” and a decision to admit or exclude is reviewed on an abuse of discretion standard. 2016Id., 526 U.S. at 148 , 119 S.Ct. at 1174 . ' Ultimately, “the trial judge must determine whether the testimony has ‘a reliable basis in knowledge and experience of [the relevant] discipline.’ ” Id., 526 U.S. at 153 , 119 S.Ct. at 1175 (quoting Daubert, 509 U.S. at 592 , 113 S.Ct. at 2796 ). “[W]hether ’ Daubert’s specific factors are, or are not reasonable measures of reliability ... is a matter that ... the trial- judge [has] broad latitude to determine,” and a decision to admit or exclude is reviewed on an abuse of discretion standard. | 1 | 7 |
Stroscher v. Stroschergreen2 sentences2021Stroscher, 01- 2729 at p. 8, 845 So. 2d at 526 . 2018Id. | 1 | 7 |
Ramaswami v. Texas Department of Human Servicesgreen2 sentences2016See Youn v. Maritime Overseas Corp., 623 So.2d 1257, 1260 (La.1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1114 , 114 S.Ct. 1059 , 127 L.Ed.2d 379 (1994). 2011We review an award of damages under the abuse of discretion standard, and in doing so, we must recognize that “the discretion vested in the trier of fact is ‘great,’ and even vast.” Youn v. Maritime Overseas Corp., 628 So.2d 1257, 1261 (La.1993), ce rt. denied, 510 U.S. 1114 , 114 S.Ct. 1059 , 127 L.Ed.2d 379 (1994). | 1 | 7 |
Thomas Nelson, Inc. v. Harper House, Incgreen2 sentences2016See Youn v. Maritime Overseas Corp., 623 So.2d 1257, 1260 (La.1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1114 , 114 S.Ct. 1059 , 127 L.Ed.2d 379 (1994). 2011We review an award of damages under the abuse of discretion standard, and in doing so, we must recognize that “the discretion vested in the trier of fact is ‘great,’ and even vast.” Youn v. Maritime Overseas Corp., 628 So.2d 1257, 1261 (La.1993), ce rt. denied, 510 U.S. 1114 , 114 S.Ct. 1059 , 127 L.Ed.2d 379 (1994). | 1 | 7 |
| Martin v. Heritage Manor Southgreen | 1 | 6 |
| State v. Wrightgreen | 1 | 5 |
| RJ Messinger, Inc. v. Rosenblumgreen | 1 | 4 |
| Joseph v. Williamsgreen | 1 | 3 |
| Gathen v. Gathengreen | 1 | 3 |
| Antippas v. Nola Hotel Grp., LLCgreen | 1 | 3 |
| State v. Ramirezgreen | 1 | 3 |
| Newsome v. Homer Memorial Medical Centergreen | 1 | 3 |
| Brown v. City of Madisonvillegreen | 1 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael
green
2 sentences2016Id., 526 U.S. at 148 , 119 S.Ct. at 1174 . ' Ultimately, “the trial judge must determine whether the testimony has ‘a reliable basis in knowledge and experience of [the relevant] discipline.’ ” Id., 526 U.S. at 153 , 119 S.Ct. at 1175 (quoting Daubert, 509 U.S. at 592 , 113 S.Ct. at 2796 ). “[W]hether ’ Daubert’s specific factors are, or are not reasonable measures of reliability ... is a matter that ... the trial- judge [has] broad latitude to determine,” and a decision to admit or exclude is reviewed on an abuse of discretion standard. 2016Id., 526 U.S. at 148 , 119 S.Ct. at 1174 . ' Ultimately, “the trial judge must determine whether the testimony has ‘a reliable basis in knowledge and experience of [the relevant] discipline.’ ” Id., 526 U.S. at 153 , 119 S.Ct. at 1175 (quoting Daubert, 509 U.S. at 592 , 113 S.Ct. at 2796 ). “[W]hether ’ Daubert’s specific factors are, or are not reasonable measures of reliability ... is a matter that ... the trial- judge [has] broad latitude to determine,” and a decision to admit or exclude is reviewed on an abuse of discretion standard. | 17 | 2000–2016 |
Leard v. Schenker
green
2 sentences2017B.Child Custody Determinations | iaChild custody determinations are reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard, Leard v. Schenker, 06-1116, p. 3 (La. 6/16/06), 931 So.2d 355, 357 . 2007Becnel v. Becnel, supra. In the recent case of Leard v. Schenker, 06-1116, pp. 3-4 (La. 6/16/06), 931 So.2d 355, 357 , the supreme court reiterated the long standing principle that custody and visitation matters are subject to an abuse of discretion standard of review: "The correct standard of review for the trial court judgment was the abuse of discretion standard. | 14 | 2007–2024 |
Boudreaux v. STATE, DOTD
green
2 sentences2008Watters v. Dept. of Social Services, 05-0324, -0325, - 0326, p. 6 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/19/06), 929 So.2d 267, 273 ; Boudreaux v. Dept of Trans. and Dev., 96-0137, p. 5 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2/14/97), 690 So.2d 114, 119 . 2007Id. (citing Boudreaux v. State, Dep't of Transp. and Dev., 96-0137, p. 5 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2/14/97), 690 So.2d 114, 119 ). | 12 | 1998–2008 |
United States v. Michael O'keefe, Sr. Eric Schmidt John O'Brien Gary Bennett Paul Schmitz
green
2 sentences2003United States v. O'Keefe, 128 F.3d 885 (5 Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1078 , 118 S.Ct. 1525 , 140 L.Ed.2d 676 (1998). 2003United States v. O'Keefe, 128 F.3d 885 (5 Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1078 , 118 S.Ct. *932 1525, 140 L.Ed.2d 676 (1998). | 11 | 2000–2003 |
Bankhead v. Mississippi
green
2 sentences2003United States v. O'Keefe, 128 F.3d 885 (5 Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1078 , 118 S.Ct. 1525 , 140 L.Ed.2d 676 (1998). 2003United States v. O'Keefe, 128 F.3d 885 (5 Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1078 , 118 S.Ct. *932 1525, 140 L.Ed.2d 676 (1998). | 11 | 2000–2003 |
Ruck v. United Transportation Union
green
2 sentences2003United States v. O'Keefe, 128 F.3d 885 (5 Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1078 , 118 S.Ct. 1525 , 140 L.Ed.2d 676 (1998). 2003United States v. O'Keefe, 128 F.3d 885 (5 Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1078 , 118 S.Ct. *932 1525, 140 L.Ed.2d 676 (1998). | 11 | 2000–2003 |
Stoughton Trailers, Inc. v. Pace Design & Fab, Inc.
green
2 sentences2003United States v. O'Keefe, 128 F.3d 885 (5 Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1078 , 118 S.Ct. 1525 , 140 L.Ed.2d 676 (1998). 2002United States v. O’Keefe, 128 F.3d 885 (5 Cir.1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1078 , 118 S.Ct. 1525 , 140 L.Ed.2d 676 (1998). | 10 | 2000–2003 |
Advance Products & Systems, Inc. v. Simon
neutral
2 sentences2017Id. 2016Id. | 9 | 2008–2017 |
Roadrunner Transportation Systems v. Brown
green
2 sentences2026“In this procedural context, a trial court's choice to hear a motion for summary judgment or to grant a continuance is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.” Id., (quoting Roadrunner, 17-0040, p. 11, 219 So.3d at 1272-73 ). 2026“In this procedural context, a trial court's choice to hear a motion for summary judgment or to grant a continuance is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.” Id., (quoting Roadrunner, 17-0040, p. 11, 219 So.3d at 1272-73 ). | 8 | 2019–2026 |
Rivarde v. City of New Orleans
green
2 sentences2023App. 4 Cir. 3/9/16), 190 So.3d 400, 403 ). 7 “Although the language of [Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure] article 966 does not grant a party the absolute right to delay a decision on a motion for summary judgment until all discovery is complete, the law does require that the parties be given a fair opportunity to present their case.” Francois, 20-0440, p. 5, 314 So.3d at 897 (quoting Serpas, 16-0948, p. 2, 213 So.3d at 429 ). “‘Unless plaintiff shows a probable injustice a suit should not be delayed pending discovery when it appears at an early stage that there is no genuine issue of fact.’” 2017App. 4 Cir. 3/9/16), 190 So.3d 400, 403 , writ denied, 16-0670 (La. 5/27/16), 192 So.3d 744 (citing Newsome v. Homer Memorial Medical Center, 10-0564, p. 3 (La. 4/9/10), 32 So.3d 800, 802 ), “[a] district court’s decision to hear a motion for summary judgment where discovery is alleged to be incomplete is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.” In the present case, Mr. Daniel clearly had ample Ltime to conduct discovery to identify the employee in question. | 6 | 2017–2023 |
| Miller v. Lammico green | 6 | 2008–2019 |
| Wright v. Hirsch green | 6 | 1995–2017 |
| Price v. Martin green | 6 | 2012–2017 |
| Hornsby v. Bayou Jack Logging neutral | 6 | 2004–2015 |
| Legaux-Barrow v. Barrow neutral | 6 | 2011–2014 |
| State v. Barnes green | 5 | 2013–2016 |
| Mai v. Floyd neutral | 5 | 2008–2015 |
| LEGAUX-BARROW v. Barrow neutral | 5 | 2012–2014 |
| Etter v. Hibernia Corp. neutral | 5 | 2007–2010 |
| Suhor v. Gusse green | 5 | 1989–2004 |
| Reck v. Stevens green | 5 | 1984–1997 |
| Jackson v. Virginia red | 4 | 2007–2024 |
| Hooper v. Travelers Insurance Co. neutral | 4 | 2020–2023 |
| Vedros v. Vedros green | 4 | 2018–2018 |
| Rogers v. Dickens green | 4 | 2007–2017 |
| Connelly v. Lee green | 4 | 2003–2015 |
| NHUT VAN MAI v. Floyd green | 4 | 2010–2015 |
| Davis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. green | 4 | 2004–2013 |
| Matter of Succession of Thomas green | 4 | 1994–1998 |
| Doe v. Southern Gyms, LLC green | 3 | 2015–2025 |
| Trahan v. Trahan neutral | 3 | 2017–2023 |
| Sercovich v. Sercovich green | 3 | 2013–2021 |
| Favrot v. Favrot neutral | 3 | 2015–2021 |
| McGee v. AC AND S, INC. green | 3 | 2019–2019 |
| Mount Zion Missionary Baptist Church v. Jones neutral | 3 | 2018–2019 |
| Benoit v. Benoit green | 3 | 2014–2019 |
| Thibeaux v. Trotter green | 3 | 2005–2018 |
| Billieson v. City of New Orleans green | 3 | 2012–2017 |
| Joyner v. Wear green | 3 | 2011–2016 |
| State v. Lommasson green | 3 | 2015–2016 |
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.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.