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.
11 Louisiana opinions name it 1 courts 1992–2017 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Youn v. Maritime Overseas Corp.green2 sentences2002In determining the amount of damages, the discretion vested in the trier of fact is "great." Youn v. Maritime Overseas Corp., 623 So.2d 1257, 1261 (La.1993), cert. denied, Maritime Overseas Corp. v. Youn, 510 U.S. 1114 , 114 S.Ct. 1059 , 127 L.Ed.2d 379 (1994). 2002In determining the amount of damages, the discretion vested in the trier of fact is “great.” Youn v. Maritime Overseas Corp., 623 So.2d 1257, 1261 (La.1993), cert. denied, Maritime Overseas Corp. v. Youn, 510 U.S. 1114 , 114 S.Ct. 1059 , 127 L.Ed.2d 379 (1994). | 2 | 2 |
Wingfield v. STATE, DEPT. OF TRANSP.green2 sentences2008Wingfield v. State Dept. of Trans., 01-2668 cw 01-2669 (La.App. 1st Cir.11/8/02), 835 So.2d 785, 806 . 2005Wingfield, supra, 2001-2668 at p. 27, 835 So.2d at 806. | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ramaswami v. Texas Department of Human Services
green
2 sentences2002In determining the amount of damages, the discretion vested in the trier of fact is "great." Youn v. Maritime Overseas Corp., 623 So.2d 1257, 1261 (La.1993), cert. denied, Maritime Overseas Corp. v. Youn, 510 U.S. 1114 , 114 S.Ct. 1059 , 127 L.Ed.2d 379 (1994). 2002In determining the amount of damages, the discretion vested in the trier of fact is “great.” Youn v. Maritime Overseas Corp., 623 So.2d 1257, 1261 (La.1993), cert. denied, Maritime Overseas Corp. v. Youn, 510 U.S. 1114 , 114 S.Ct. 1059 , 127 L.Ed.2d 379 (1994). | 2 | 2002–2002 |
Thomas Nelson, Inc. v. Harper House, Inc
green
2 sentences2002In determining the amount of damages, the discretion vested in the trier of fact is "great." Youn v. Maritime Overseas Corp., 623 So.2d 1257, 1261 (La.1993), cert. denied, Maritime Overseas Corp. v. Youn, 510 U.S. 1114 , 114 S.Ct. 1059 , 127 L.Ed.2d 379 (1994). 2002In determining the amount of damages, the discretion vested in the trier of fact is “great.” Youn v. Maritime Overseas Corp., 623 So.2d 1257, 1261 (La.1993), cert. denied, Maritime Overseas Corp. v. Youn, 510 U.S. 1114 , 114 S.Ct. 1059 , 127 L.Ed.2d 379 (1994). | 2 | 2002–2002 |
Lumley v. Hogsett
green
2 sentences2002In determining the amount of damages, the discretion vested in the trier of fact is "great." Youn v. Maritime Overseas Corp., 623 So.2d 1257, 1261 (La.1993), cert. denied, Maritime Overseas Corp. v. Youn, 510 U.S. 1114 , 114 S.Ct. 1059 , 127 L.Ed.2d 379 (1994). 2002In determining the amount of damages, the discretion vested in the trier of fact is “great.” Youn v. Maritime Overseas Corp., 623 So.2d 1257, 1261 (La.1993), cert. denied, Maritime Overseas Corp. v. Youn, 510 U.S. 1114 , 114 S.Ct. 1059 , 127 L.Ed.2d 379 (1994). | 2 | 2002–2002 |
Hayes Fund for the First United Methodist Church of Welsh, LLC v. Kerr-Mcgee Rocky Mountain, LLC
green
1 sentence2017Our supreme court further articulated the role of an appellate court when conducting a review for manifest error in Hayes Fund for First United Methodist Church of Welsh, LLC v. Kerr-McGee Rocky Mountain, LLC , 14-2592 (La. 12/8/15), 193 So.3d 1110 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Oaks, Inc. v. Health Service & Ind. Co.
green
1 sentence2011Id. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Housley v. Cerise
green
1 sentence2003When an appellate court reviews the factual findings of the trial court, it is limited to a review for manifest error. 1 The court may only modify or set aside a factual finding of the jury when it is clearly wrong. 2 This is resolved by determining whether the finding was reasonable in light of the record reviewed in its entirety. 3 |4In its reasons for judgment, the trial court in this case stated that it based its finding on two major elements: 1) “Both plaintiffs who testified were not convincing that the ‘impact’ which amounted to a ding in one vehicle’s wheel cover would cause bodily inj | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Stroik v. Ponseti
green
1 sentence1999Stroik v. Ponseti 96-2897 (La.9/9/97), 699 So.2d 1072, 1077 . |7In reviewing the factual findings of the trial court, the Court of Appeal is limited to a review for manifest error. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Stobart v. State Through DOTD
green
1 sentence1994Fisher v. River Oaks, 93-CA-677 (La.App. 5th Cir. 3/19/94); 635 So.2d 1209 ; Stobart v. State Through DOTD, 617 So.2d 880 (La.1993). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Fisher v. River Oaks, Ltd.
green
1 sentence1994Fisher v. River Oaks, 93-CA-677 (La.App. 5th Cir. 3/19/94); 635 So.2d 1209 ; Stobart v. State Through DOTD, 617 So.2d 880 (La.1993). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Fiffie v. Borden, Inc.
green
1 sentence1993See: Fiffie v. Borden, Inc., 618 So.2d 1199 (La.App. 5th Cir.1993). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Conoco, Inc. v. Tenneco, Inc.
green
1 sentence1992Conoco, Inc. v. Tenneco, Inc., 524 So.2d 1305 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1988). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.