award error in Louisiana

1999"Past lost wages are susceptible of being calculated with mathematical certainty from the proof offered at trial, and thus, such an award is an exception to the much discretion rule." Id. at 97 .

1998"Past lost wages are susceptible of being calculated with mathematical certainty from the proof offered at trial, and thus, such an award is an exception to the much discretion rule." Id. at 97 .

2011Id.

2010CITGO cites Broussard v. Olin Corp., 546 So.2d 1301 (La.App. 3 Cir.1989), where a panel of this court denied recovery for a fear of cancer, finding that Mr. Broussard did not show that cancer can result from phosgene gas poisoning.

2009In brief, Defendants argue “that the award was in error and/or excessive.” Further, Defendants contend that the trial j^court’s reliance upon the cases of Griffin v. Abshire, 04-37 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/2/04) , 878 So.2d 750 , writ denied, 04-1663 (La.10/8/04), 883 So.2d 1018 , and Phillips v. Town of Many, 538 So.2d 745 (La.App. 3 Cir.1989), is misplaced.

2009In brief, Defendants argue “that the award was in error and/or excessive.” Further, Defendants contend that the trial j^court’s reliance upon the cases of Griffin v. Abshire, 04-37 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/2/04) , 878 So.2d 750 , writ denied, 04-1663 (La.10/8/04), 883 So.2d 1018 , and Phillips v. Town of Many, 538 So.2d 745 (La.App. 3 Cir.1989), is misplaced.

2009In brief, Defendants argue “that the award was in error and/or excessive.” Further, Defendants contend that the trial j^court’s reliance upon the cases of Griffin v. Abshire, 04-37 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/2/04) , 878 So.2d 750 , writ denied, 04-1663 (La.10/8/04), 883 So.2d 1018 , and Phillips v. Town of Many, 538 So.2d 745 (La.App. 3 Cir.1989), is misplaced.

2008A court has authority to render a "judgment for costs" and "[c]ourts have great discretion in assessing court costs." Aucoin v. Southern Quality Homes, LLC, XXXX-XXXX (La.02/26/08), 984 So.2d 685 , citing, Cajun Elec.

2006We find the reasoning of the Fifth Circuit in Louisiana Insurance Guaranty Ass'n v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 2005-27 (La.App. 5 Cir. 5/31/05) , 905 So.2d 444 , to be compelling, and, therefore, amend the judgment to delete the award of defense costs.

2003Ms. Dixon cites Jackson v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 97-0109 (La.App. 4 Cir. 12/23/97) , 712 So.2d 514 for the proposition that the minimum award for a plaintiff who had undergone a cervical fusion is $125,000.

1999Green Indus., Inc., 97-3188 (La.7/8/98); 716 So.2d 355 .

1998Naquin v. Uniroyal, Inc., 405 So.2d 525 (La.1981); Thibodeaux v. Woman's Hosp. of Acadiana Foundation, Inc., 578 So.2d 213 (La.App. 3 Cir.1991).

1998Naquin v. Uniroyal, Inc., 405 So.2d 525 (La.1981); Thibodeaux v. Woman's Hosp. of Acadiana Foundation, Inc., 578 So.2d 213 (La.App. 3 Cir.1991).

1997Simar v. NOWCAM Servs., 617 So.2d 164 (La.App. 3 Cir.1993).

1995The award, id. est, the judgment by the hearing officer ordering payments, is necessary to effectuate either the judicial mortgage or the payment of interest.

1990Id.

1985In Wattigny v. Lambert, supra, the Court of Appeal based its raising the award on these factors: the allegations were false and published without investigation or corroboration; the plaintiff's position in the community was damaged; publication was made by all the media; and, as a result the plaintiff and his wife had suffered severe anxiety over a period of three years.

1971We granted review because of plaintiff’s serious allegation that the Court of Appeal had drastically reduced the award in violation of Louisiana Civil Code Article 1934 (3) and the principles announced in Gaspard v. LeMaire, 245 La. 239 , 158 So.2d 149 (1963); Ballard v. National Indemnity Company of Omaha, Neb., 246 La. 963 , 169 *289 So.2d 64 (1964) ; and Lomenick v. Schoeffler, 250 La. 959 , 200 So.2d 127 (1967).

1971We granted review because of plaintiff’s serious allegation that the Court of Appeal had drastically reduced the award in violation of Louisiana Civil Code Article 1934 (3) and the principles announced in Gaspard v. LeMaire, 245 La. 239 , 158 So.2d 149 (1963); Ballard v. National Indemnity Company of Omaha, Neb., 246 La. 963 , 169 *289 So.2d 64 (1964) ; and Lomenick v. Schoeffler, 250 La. 959 , 200 So.2d 127 (1967).

1971We granted review because of plaintiff’s serious allegation that the Court of Appeal had drastically reduced the award in violation of Louisiana Civil Code Article 1934 (3) and the principles announced in Gaspard v. LeMaire, 245 La. 239 , 158 So.2d 149 (1963); Ballard v. National Indemnity Company of Omaha, Neb., 246 La. 963 , 169 *289 So.2d 64 (1964) ; and Lomenick v. Schoeffler, 250 La. 959 , 200 So.2d 127 (1967).

1971We granted review because of plaintiff’s serious allegation that the Court of Appeal had drastically reduced the award in violation of Louisiana Civil Code Article 1934 (3) and the principles announced in Gaspard v. LeMaire, 245 La. 239 , 158 So.2d 149 (1963); Ballard v. National Indemnity Company of Omaha, Neb., 246 La. 963 , 169 *289 So.2d 64 (1964) ; and Lomenick v. Schoeffler, 250 La. 959 , 200 So.2d 127 (1967).

1971We granted review because of plaintiff’s serious allegation that the Court of Appeal had drastically reduced the award in violation of Louisiana Civil Code Article 1934 (3) and the principles announced in Gaspard v. LeMaire, 245 La. 239 , 158 So.2d 149 (1963); Ballard v. National Indemnity Company of Omaha, Neb., 246 La. 963 , 169 *289 So.2d 64 (1964) ; and Lomenick v. Schoeffler, 250 La. 959 , 200 So.2d 127 (1967).

1971We granted review because of plaintiff’s serious allegation that the Court of Appeal had drastically reduced the award in violation of Louisiana Civil Code Article 1934 (3) and the principles announced in Gaspard v. LeMaire, 245 La. 239 , 158 So.2d 149 (1963); Ballard v. National Indemnity Company of Omaha, Neb., 246 La. 963 , 169 *289 So.2d 64 (1964) ; and Lomenick v. Schoeffler, 250 La. 959 , 200 So.2d 127 (1967).