80 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1911–2022 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Jinks v. Wrightgreen2 sentences2019This rigorous standard is based upon the principle that “[w]hen there is a jury, the jury is the trier of fact.” Scott, 496 So.2d at 273 ; Jinks v. Wright, 520 So.2d 792, 794 (La.App. 3 Cir.1987). 2017This rigorous standard is based upon the principle that “[w]hen there is a jury, the jury is the trier of fact.” Scott, 496 So.2d at 273 ; Jinks v. Wright, 520 So.2d 792, 794 (La. | 11 | 11 |
Joseph v. Broussard Rice Mill, Inc.green2 sentences2019This rigorous standard is based upon the principle that "[w]hen there is a jury, the jury is the trier of fact." Id. at 64-65, pp. 5-6 (quoting Joseph v. Broussard Rice Mill, Inc. , 00-628 (La. 10/30/00), 772 So.2d 94 , 99 ). 2019This rigorous standard is based upon the principle that "[w]hen there is a jury, the jury is the trier of fact." Id. at 64-65, pp. 5-6 (quoting Joseph v. Broussard Rice Mill, Inc. , 00-628 (La. 10/30/00), 772 So.2d 94 , 99 ). | 6 | 30 |
McCastle v. Rollins Environmental Services of La., Inc.green2 sentences2022The “rigorous analysis” a trial court must employ under Brooks, Dupree, and McCastle, supra, in determining whether or not class certification is appropriate in a particular case does not, as Gretna proposes, require that the trial court conduct “a rigorous analysis involving the application of facts to the six (6) 21-CA-574 29 prohibitory laws and two (2) Constitutional provisions,” an analysis that necessarily involves consideration of the merits of plaintiffs’ claims.9 In this regard, Gretna erroneously avers the trial court applied an incorrect legal analysis, and that class certification 2018Defendants appeal the trial court's order granting class certification and the trial court's definition of the class, asserting the trial court failed to "perform a rigorous analysis of the claims and defenses presented." They also assert Plaintiffs failed to establish commonality, predominance and superiority "because they cannot prove breach, causation, and damages on a class-wide basis." Additionally, Defendants maintain the trial court erroneously based its finding of "numerosity" on the "number of potentially aggrieved parties" rather than on the "number of individuals actually aggrieved. | 3 | 6 |
David Pitts Jr. and Kenyetta Gurley v. Louisiana Medical Mutual Insurance Company and Rhoda Renee Jones, M.D.green2 sentences2019This rigorous standard is based upon the principle that "[w]hen there is a jury, the jury is the trier of fact." Id. at 64-65, pp. 5-6 (quoting Joseph v. Broussard Rice Mill, Inc. , 00-628 (La. 10/30/00), 772 So.2d 94 , 99 ). 2019This rigorous standard is based upon the principle that "[w]hen there is a jury, the jury is the trier of fact." Id. at 64-65, pp. 5-6 (quoting Joseph v. Broussard Rice Mill, Inc. , 00-628 (La. 10/30/00), 772 So.2d 94 , 99 ). | 3 | 3 |
Trunk v. Med. Center of La. at New Orleansgreen2 sentences2015This rigorous standard is based upon the principle that “[w]hen there is a jury, the jury is the trier of fact.” The Louisiana Supreme Court in Trunk v. Medical Center of Louisiana at New Orleans, 04-181, pp. 4-5 (La.10/19/04), 885 So.2d 534, 537 , set forth the standard of review for an appellate court when reviewing a JNOV granted by a trial court: | sIn reviewing a JNOV, an appellate court must first determine whether the district judge erred in granting the JNOV by using the above-mentioned criteria in the same way as the district judge in deciding whether to grant the motion. 2013This rigorous standard is based upon the principle that “[w]hen there is a jury, the jury is the trier of fact.” The Louisiana Supreme Court in Trunk v. Medical Center of Louisiana at New Orleans, 04-181, pp. 4-5 (La.10/19/04), 885 So.2d 534, 537 , set forth the standard of review for an appellate court when reviewing a JNOV granted by a trial court: In reviewing a JNOV, an appellate court must first determine whether the district judge erred in granting the JNOV by using the above-mentioned criteria in the same way as the district judge in deciding whether to grant the motion. | 1 | 5 |
Doe v. Southern Gyms, LLCgreen2 sentences2018App. 4 Cir. 4/15/15), 165 So.3d 268 , 278 ; see also Doe v. Southern Gyms, LLC , 12-1566, p. 14 (La. 3/19/13), 112 So.3d 822 , 832-33 (finding that the general rule in favor of certifying a class does not obviate the requirement that courts conduct a rigorous analysis and take a close look at a case to determine if the statutory requirements have been satisfied). 2015Finally, the court held that the requirement of an objectively definable class was not proven because the proposed class definition was imprecise and overbroad, thereby containing members who could not possibly have any cause of action. | Jn Doe v. Southern Gyms, L.L.C., 12-1556 (La.3/19/13), 112 So.3d 822 , the Court stated: A rigorous analysis must be used to determine whether a class action meets the requirements imposed by law, since this procedural device is an exception to the rule that litigation be conducted by and on behalf of the individually named parties only. | 1 | 3 |
Price v. Martingreen2 sentences2018Price v. Martin , 11-853 (La. 12/6/11), 79 So.3d 960 . 2013It argues that the Appellants seek damages from ACS alleging that it improperly converted their funds, but ACS maintains that the Court must conduct a rigorous analysis of whether the putative class-member claims are susceptible of class-wide proof under Price v. Martin, 11-0853 (La.12/6/11), 79 So.3d 960 and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, _ U.S. _, 131 S.Ct. 2541, 2550 , 180 L.Ed.2d 374 (2011). | 1 | 3 |
Anderson v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc.green1 sentence2022Anderson, 583 So.2d at 832 (internal citation omitted and text reformatted). 3) The trial court erred in partially granting Ms. Bombardier’s motion in limine; 4) The trial court erred in charging all cost to Church Mutual; and 5) The trial court erred in charging Church Mutual for interest not covered by its policy. 5 The jurisprudence, thus, has established a rigorous standard for granting a JNOV. | 1 | 1 |
Wood v. Humphriesgreen1 sentence2018See Wood, 2011-2161 at 13-14, 103 So.3d at 1116 . | 1 | 1 |
Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelingreen2 sentences2015Eisen v. Carlisle and Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 178 , 94 S.Ct. 2140, 2153 , 40 L.Ed.2d 732 (1974). 2 InThis determination of whether a class action meets the requirements imposed by law involves a rigorous analysis in which the trial court “must evaluate, quantify, and weigh [the relevant factors] to determine to what extent the class action would in each instance promote or detract from the goals of effectuating substantive law, judicial efficiency, and individual fairness.” McCastle v. Rollins Environmental Services of Louisiana, Inc., 456 So.2d 612, 618 (La.1984). 2015Eisen v. Carlisle and Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 178 , 94 S.Ct. 2140, 2153 , 40 L.Ed.2d 732 (1974). 2 InThis determination of whether a class action meets the requirements imposed by law involves a rigorous analysis in which the trial court “must evaluate, quantify, and weigh [the relevant factors] to determine to what extent the class action would in each instance promote or detract from the goals of effectuating substantive law, judicial efficiency, and individual fairness.” McCastle v. Rollins Environmental Services of Louisiana, Inc., 456 So.2d 612, 618 (La.1984). | 1 | 1 |
Wooley v. Lucksingergreen1 sentence2015“Appeal is the exercise of the right of a party to have a judgment of a trial court revised, modified, set aside, or reversed by an appellate court.” La.Code Civ.P. art.2082 (emphasis added). ‘“Appeals are taken from the judgment, not the written reasons for judgment.’” Wooley v.' Lucksinger, 09-571, 09-584, 09-585, 09-586, p. 77 (La.4/1/11), 61 So.3d 507, 572 (quoting Greater New Orleans Expressway Comm’n v. Olivier, 02-2795, p. 3 (La.11/18/03), 860 So.2d 22, 24 ). “[W]rit-ten reasons are not binding or appealable; only the judgment itself has judicial effect and is subject to appeal.” Guidry | 1 | 1 |
Sudwischer v. Estate of Hoffpauirgreen1 sentence2014Laws restricting fundamental rights are subject to strict scrutiny because they are considered to be so essential to the structure of our society, in which citizens enjoy “ordered liberty.” 4 See Sudwischer v. Estate of Hoffpauir, 589 So.2d 474, 478 (La.1991). | 1 | 1 |
| Clement v. Freygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Bd. of Dir. of La. Recovery Dist. v. All Taxpayers, Property Owners, and Citizens of Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Scott v. Hosp. Serv. Dist. No. 1
green
2 sentences2019This rigorous standard is based upon the principle that “[w]hen there is a jury, the jury is the trier of fact.” Scott, 496 So.2d at 273 ; Jinks v. Wright, 520 So.2d 792, 794 (La.App. 3 Cir.1987). 2017This rigorous standard is based upon the principle that “[w]hen there is a jury, the jury is the trier of fact.” Scott, 496 So.2d at 273 ; Jinks v. Wright, 520 So.2d 792, 794 (La. | 15 | 2000–2019 |
Brooks v. Union Pacific Railroad
green
2 sentences2012Co., 08-2035, p. 10 (La.5/22/09), 13 So.3d 546 , 554: The determination of whether a class action meets the requirements imposed by law involves a rigorous analysis. 2010Co., 01-0447, p. 7 (La.App. 1 Cir. 5/15/02), 826 So.2d 55, 61 . *582 The Louisiana Supreme Court recently stated, in Brooks , 08-2035 at p. 10, 13 So.3d at 554 : The determination of whether a class action meets the requirements imposed by law involves a rigorous analysis. | 7 | 2009–2017 |
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes
green
2 sentences2018Moreover, certification is proper only if, "after a rigorous analysis, the prerequisites of Rule 23(a) have been satisfied," and often the rigorous analysis "will entail some overlap with the merits of the plaintiff's underlying claim." In other words, the " 'class determination generally involves considerations that are enmeshed in the factual and legal issues comprising the plaintiff's cause of action.' " 564 U.S. at 351 , 131 S.Ct. at 2552 (quoting General Tel. 2018Moreover, certification is proper only if, "after a rigorous analysis, the prerequisites of Rule 23(a) have been satisfied," and often the rigorous analysis "will entail some overlap with the merits of the plaintiff's underlying claim." In other words, the " 'class determination generally involves considerations that are enmeshed in the factual and legal issues comprising the plaintiff's cause of action.' " 564 U.S. at 351 , 131 S.Ct. at 2552 (quoting General Tel. | 2 | 2013–2018 |
Prentiss Baker and Sheryl Wiginton, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Phc-Minden, L.P. D/B/A Minden Medical Center
green
2 sentences2018In Baker v. PHC-Minden, L.P. , 14-2243 p. 12 (La. 5/5/15), 167 So.3d 528 , 538 (emphasis added), the supreme court also set forth the applicable appellate standard of review: A trial court has wide discretion in deciding whether to certify a class. 2017Baker, 167 So.3d at 537 ; Dupree v. Lafayette Ins. | 2 | 2017–2018 |
Smith v. State
green
2 sentences2016Smith, supra-, Joseph, supra. In previewing a JNOV, an appellate court must initially determine whether the trial judge erred in granting the JNOV by using the above-mentioned criteria in the same way as the trial judge in deciding whether to grant the motion. 2006Trunk v. Medical Center of Louisiana at New Orleans, 04-0181, p. 5 (La.10/19/04), 885 So.2d 534, 537 (citing Joseph v. Broussard Rice Mill, Inc., 00-0628, pp. 4-5 (La.10/30/00), 772 So.2d 94, 99 ); Smith , 04-1317 at p. 13, 899 So.2d at 525 . | 2 | 2006–2016 |
Ford v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc.
green
2 sentences2013Concluding there was no error by the trial court in certifying the class, the appellate court found no merit to the defendants’ arguments and affirmed. 11 We consolidated and granted the defendants’ separate writ applications to review the judgments of the lower courts and, in particular, to examine whether those courts engaged in the rigorous analysis required to determine whether this action meets the requirements imposed by law for class action certification. 12 JüLAW General Class Actions Law In Ford v. Murphy Oil U.S.A., Inc., 1996-2913, p. 4 (La.9/9/97); 703 So.2d 542, 544 , we said: [t] 2009The purpose and intent of class action procedure is to adjudicate and obtain res judicata effect on all common issues applicable not only to persons who bring the action, but to all others who are “similarly situated.” Id. 7 The determination of whether a class action meets the requirements imposed by law involves a rigorous analysis. | 2 | 2009–2013 |
Martin v. Heritage Manor South
green
2 sentences2006Martin v. Heritage Manor South Nursing Home, 00-1023 (La.4/3/01), 784 So.2d 627 . 2006Martin v. Heritage Manor South Nursing Home, 00-1023 (La.4/3/01), 784 So.2d 627 . | 2 | 2006–2006 |
Templet v. State Ex Rel. Dept. of Transp. and Development
green
1 sentence2022Under this standard, “[n]either the trial court, nor this court can substitute its evaluation of the evidence for that of the jury unless the jury’s conclusions totally offend reasonable inferences from the evidence.” Templet, 00-2162, p. 5, 818 So.2d at 58 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Claborne v. Housing Authority of New Orleans
green
1 sentence2018App. 4 Cir. 4/15/15), 165 So.3d 268 , 278 ; see also Doe v. Southern Gyms, LLC , 12-1566, p. 14 (La. 3/19/13), 112 So.3d 822 , 832-33 (finding that the general rule in favor of certifying a class does not obviate the requirement that courts conduct a rigorous analysis and take a close look at a case to determine if the statutory requirements have been satisfied). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. Falcon
green
2 sentences2018Co. of SW v. Falcon , 457 U.S. 147 , 160, 102 S.Ct. 2364 , 72 L.Ed.2d 740 (1982) ). 2018Co. of SW v. Falcon , 457 U.S. 147 , 160, 102 S.Ct. 2364 , 72 L.Ed.2d 740 (1982) ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Pitts v. Louisiana Medical Mutual Insurance Co.
green
2 sentences2017Further, with regard to the motion for new trial, based on the totality of the evidence presented, I am unable to conclude that the jury=s verdict was not supported by any fair interpretation of the evidence.@ Id. 2017As explained by the court of appeal, Agiven the considerable disagreement among the medical experts, a reasonable person could have concluded that the plaintiffs did not establish a breach of the standard of care applicable to Dr. Jones by a preponderance of the evidence presented at trial.@ Pitts, 197 So. 3d at 235 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
GREATER NEW ORLEANS EXPRESSWAY v. Olivier
green
1 sentence2015“Appeal is the exercise of the right of a party to have a judgment of a trial court revised, modified, set aside, or reversed by an appellate court.” La.Code Civ.P. art.2082 (emphasis added). ‘“Appeals are taken from the judgment, not the written reasons for judgment.’” Wooley v.' Lucksinger, 09-571, 09-584, 09-585, 09-586, p. 77 (La.4/1/11), 61 So.3d 507, 572 (quoting Greater New Orleans Expressway Comm’n v. Olivier, 02-2795, p. 3 (La.11/18/03), 860 So.2d 22, 24 ). “[W]rit-ten reasons are not binding or appealable; only the judgment itself has judicial effect and is subject to appeal.” Guidry | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Guidry v. GULF COAST COIL TUBING
green
1 sentence2015“Appeal is the exercise of the right of a party to have a judgment of a trial court revised, modified, set aside, or reversed by an appellate court.” La.Code Civ.P. art.2082 (emphasis added). ‘“Appeals are taken from the judgment, not the written reasons for judgment.’” Wooley v.' Lucksinger, 09-571, 09-584, 09-585, 09-586, p. 77 (La.4/1/11), 61 So.3d 507, 572 (quoting Greater New Orleans Expressway Comm’n v. Olivier, 02-2795, p. 3 (La.11/18/03), 860 So.2d 22, 24 ). “[W]rit-ten reasons are not binding or appealable; only the judgment itself has judicial effect and is subject to appeal.” Guidry | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Wainwright v. Fontenot
green
1 sentence2014This 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 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
In Re Gramercy Plant Explosion at Kaiser
green
1 sentence2013In re Gramercy Plant Explosion at Kaiser, 04-1151 (La.App. 5 Cir. 3/28/06) , 927 So.2d 492, 499 , writ denied, 08-0481 (La.5/2/08), 982 So.2d 763 , and 08-0481 (La.6/20/08), 983 So.2d 1263 . [A] JNOV is warranted when the facts and inferences point so strongly and overwhelmingly in favor of one party that the trial court believes that reasonable persons could not arrive at a contrary verdict. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
STATE EX REL. ROLLINS v. State
neutral
1 sentence2013In re Gramercy Plant Explosion at Kaiser, 04-1151 (La.App. 5 Cir. 3/28/06) , 927 So.2d 492, 499 , writ denied, 08-0481 (La.5/2/08), 982 So.2d 763 , and 08-0481 (La.6/20/08), 983 So.2d 1263 . [A] JNOV is warranted when the facts and inferences point so strongly and overwhelmingly in favor of one party that the trial court believes that reasonable persons could not arrive at a contrary verdict. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
In Re Gramercy Plant Explosion at Kaiser
neutral
1 sentence2013In re Gramercy Plant Explosion at Kaiser, 04-1151 (La.App. 5 Cir. 3/28/06) , 927 So.2d 492, 499 , writ denied, 08-0481 (La.5/2/08), 982 So.2d 763 , and 08-0481 (La.6/20/08), 983 So.2d 1263 . [A] JNOV is warranted when the facts and inferences point so strongly and overwhelmingly in favor of one party that the trial court believes that reasonable persons could not arrive at a contrary verdict. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Durio v. Horace Mann Insurance Company
neutral
1 sentence2011Price v. Martin, 11-0853 (La.7/1/11), 64 So.3d 234 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Pattison v. Valley Forge Ins. Co. green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Singleton v. Northfield Ins. Co. green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| cluster 780857 green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Daniels v. Witco Corp. green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Pattison v. Valley Forge Ins. Co. neutral | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Simoneaux v. Amoco Production Co. green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Buckley v. Valeo green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| United States v. Hasting green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| State v. Boneventure green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| State v. Lewis green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| Fritts v. Palmer green | 1 | 1911–1911 |
| Alexander v. Tolleston Club green | 1 | 1911–1911 |
| Natoma Water & Mining Co. v. Clarkin green | 1 | 1911–1911 |
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.