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 2 courts 1964–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ceh, Inc. v. F/v Seafarer (On 675048)green2 sentences2005In CEH, Inc. v. F/V Seafarer, 70 F.3d 694, 700-702 (1st Cir.1995), the United States First Circuit Court of Appeal very eloquently analyzed the uniformity principle espoused by Miles and its application to cases such as the one before us now: In Miles , the mother of a deceased seaman brought a wrongful death action sounding both in negligence under the Jones Act, and unseaworthiness under the general maritime law. 2005In CEH, Inc. v. F/V Seafarer, 70 F.3d 694, 700-702 (1st Cir.1995), the United States First Circuit Court of Appeal very eloquently analyzed the uniformity principle espoused by Miles and its application to cases such as the one before us now: In Miles , the mother of a deceased seaman brought a wrongful death action sounding both in negligence under the Jones Act, and unseaworthiness under the general maritime law. | 2 | 2 |
Green v. Industrial Helicopters, Inc.green2 sentences2006In determining the applicability of state law in a maritime context, the balance of the analysis entails "determining whether there is applicable federal legislation, identifying the `characteristic features of maritime law', and examining the scope of the uniformity requirement." Green, 593 So.2d at 639 . 2006In Green v. Industrial Helicopters, Inc., 593 So.2d 634 (La.1992), this Court held that Louisiana's strict liability provisions of La. | 1 | 2 |
BP Oil Co. v. Plaquemines Parish Gov.green1 sentence2016Co. v. Plaquemines Parish Gov’t, 93-1109 (La. 9/6/94), 651 So.2d 1322, 1337 (on reh’g (La. 10/13/94)), we declined to interpret the uniformity requirement of then Article VI, Section 29(D) because it was not necessary to resolving the issue before the Court. 2 Arrow argues the legislature cannot provide for an exclusion that is not uniformly applied. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cassreino v. Brown
green
2 sentences1967Mindful of this Court's decision in Ballard v. National Indemnity Company of Omaha, Neb., 246 La. 963 , 169 So.2d 64 (1964) that awards in cases involving similar injuries are relevant only to determine whether the award is so excessive or inadequate as to constitute an abuse of discretion, we consider the following cases, all of which have been decided after Cassreino v. Brown (La.App.) 144 So.2d 608 , wherein a doctrine of uniformity (now discarded) was enunciated for fixing the measure of damages in whiplash cases. 1967Mindful of this Court’s decision in Ballard v. National Indemnity Company of Omaha, Neb., 246 La. 963 , 169 So.2d 64 (1964) that awards in cases involving similar injuries are relevant only to determine whether the award is so excessive or inadequate as to constitute an abuse of discretion, we consider the following cases, all of which have been decided after Cassreino v. Brown (La.App.) 144 So.2d 608 , wherein a doctrine of uniformity (now discarded) was enunciated for fixing the measure of damages in whiplash cases. | 3 | 1964–1967 |
Ballard v. National Indemnity Company of Omaha, Neb.
green
2 sentences1967Mindful of this Court’s decision in Ballard v. National Indemnity Company of Omaha, Neb., 246 La. 963 , 169 So.2d 64 (1964) that awards in cases involving similar injuries are relevant only to determine whether the award is so excessive or inadequate as to constitute an abuse of discretion, we consider the following cases, all of which have been decided after Cassreino v. Brown (La.App.) 144 So.2d 608 , wherein a doctrine of uniformity (now discarded) was enunciated for fixing the measure of damages in whiplash cases. 1967Mindful of this Court’s decision in Ballard v. National Indemnity Company of Omaha, Neb., 246 La. 963 , 169 So.2d 64 (1964) that awards in cases involving similar injuries are relevant only to determine whether the award is so excessive or inadequate as to constitute an abuse of discretion, we consider the following cases, all of which have been decided after Cassreino v. Brown (La.App.) 144 So.2d 608 , wherein a doctrine of uniformity (now discarded) was enunciated for fixing the measure of damages in whiplash cases. | 2 | 1967–1967 |
Giorgio v. Alliance Operating Corp.
green
2 sentences2009Giorgio, 921 So.2d at 68 . 2009Id. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Rebardi v. Crewboats, Inc.
green
1 sentence2009Rebardi, 906 So.2d at 461 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Yamaha Motor Corp., USA v. Calhoun
green
2 sentences2001Just as in Yamaha , where "Congress has not prescribed remedies for the wrongful deaths of nonseafarers in territorial waters," 516 U.S. at 215, 116 S.Ct. 619 [ at 628], 133 L.Ed.2d 578 , so in this case Congress has passed no law providing for claims by injured passengers or dictating the scope of relief they are entitled to. 2001Just as in Yamaha , where "Congress has not prescribed remedies for the wrongful deaths of nonseafarers in territorial waters," 516 U.S. at 215, 116 S.Ct. 619 [ at 628], 133 L.Ed.2d 578 , so in this case Congress has passed no law providing for claims by injured passengers or dictating the scope of relief they are entitled to. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Partin v. Florida Commission on Ethics
green
1 sentence2001Id. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Gaspard v. LeMaire
green
2 sentences1964Counsel for plaintiffs contend the Court of Appeal, contrary to the recent decision of this court in the case of Gaspard v. LeMaire, on rehearing, 245 La. 239 , 158 So.2d 149 , in reducing the awards after reading the evidence in the record, substituted its judgment for that of the trial judge without finding in what respect he had manifestly erred or abused his discretion, and applied the “discarded doctrine of uniformity,” enunciated in Cassreino v. Brown, La.App., 144 So.2d 608 . 1964Counsel for plaintiffs contend the Court of Appeal, contrary to the recent decision of this court in the case of Gaspard v. LeMaire, on rehearing, 245 La. 239 , 158 So.2d 149 , in reducing the awards after reading the evidence in the record, substituted its judgment for that of the trial judge without finding in what respect he had manifestly erred or abused his discretion, and applied the “discarded doctrine of uniformity,” enunciated in Cassreino v. Brown, La.App., 144 So.2d 608 . | 1 | 1964–1964 |
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.