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.
55 Louisiana opinions name it 1 courts 1995–2024 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Anderson v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc.green2 sentences2011Second, “[a]fter determining that the trial correctly applied its standard of review as to the jury verdict, the appellate court reviews the JNOV using the manifest error standard of review.” Martin, 2000-1023 at p. 6, n. 7, 784 So.2d at 632 (citing Anderson, 583 So.2d at 832 ). 2004Second, "[a]fter determining that the trial correctly applied its standard of review as to the jury verdict, the appellate court reviews the JNOV using the manifest error standard of review." Martin , XXXX-XXXX at p. 6, n. 7, 784 So.2d at 632 (citing Anderson, 583 So.2d at 832 ). | 3 | 8 |
Davis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.green2 sentences2023Next, once the appellate court concludes “that the trial court correctly applied its standard of review as to the jury verdict, the appellate court reviews the JNOV using the manifest error standard of review.” Id., p. 5, 774 So.2d at 89 (citing Anderson v. New Orleans Pub. 2019After determining that the trial court correctly applied its standard of review as to the jury verdict, the appellate court reviews the JNOV using the manifest error standard of review. 2000-0445, p. 5 (La. 11/28/00), 774 So.2d 84 , 89 (citing Anderson v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. , 583 So.2d at 832 ). *523 When reviewing the trial court's findings of fact for manifest error, the issue to be resolved by the appellate court is not whether the trier of fact was right or wrong, but whether the factfinder's conclusion was reasonable. | 1 | 26 |
Bigelow v. CRESCENT TITLE, LLCgreen2 sentences2024Bigelow v. Crescent Title, L.L.C., 997 So.2d at 87. 2012“After determining that the trial court correctly applied its standard of review as to the jury verdict, the appellate court reviews the JNOV using the manifest error standard of review.” Bigelow , 08-0932, p. 6, 997 So.2d at 87 , citing Davis, supra. As stated above, we find no manifest error in the jury’s findings. | 1 | 4 |
Fontenot v. Patterson Insurancegreen2 sentences2022Bigelow v. Crescent Title, L.L.C., 997 So.2d at 87. 13 “The law provides we must give great deference to the allocation of fault as determined by the trier of fact.” Fontenot v. Patterson Ins., 09-0669, p. 22 (La. 10/20/09), 23 So.3d 259, 274 (citing Clement v. Frey, 95-1119, 95-1163, p. 7 (La. 1/16/96), 666 So.2d 607, 610 ). “[T]he allocation of fault is not an exact science, or the search for one precise ratio, but rather an acceptable range, and that any allocation by the factfinder within that range cannot be clearly wrong.” Fontenot, 09-0669, p. 22, 23 So.3d at 274 (citing Foley v. Enterg 2022Bigelow v. Crescent Title, L.L.C., 997 So.2d at 87. 13 “The law provides we must give great deference to the allocation of fault as determined by the trier of fact.” Fontenot v. Patterson Ins., 09-0669, p. 22 (La. 10/20/09), 23 So.3d 259, 274 (citing Clement v. Frey, 95-1119, 95-1163, p. 7 (La. 1/16/96), 666 So.2d 607, 610 ). “[T]he allocation of fault is not an exact science, or the search for one precise ratio, but rather an acceptable range, and that any allocation by the factfinder within that range cannot be clearly wrong.” Fontenot, 09-0669, p. 22, 23 So.3d at 274 (citing Foley v. Enterg | 1 | 1 |
Gibson v. Bossier City General Hosp.green1 sentence1995Gibson v. Bossier City General Hospital, 594 So.2d 1332, 1336 (La. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Martin v. Heritage Manor South
green
2 sentences2012Martin, supra; Davis supra, Anderson, supra. Individual drivers have a duty to operate, control, and use their automobiles reasonably, and to maintain a proper lookout for hazards which might pose an unreasonable risk of harm. 2004Second, "[a]fter determining that the trial correctly applied its standard of review as to the jury verdict, the appellate court reviews the JNOV using the manifest error standard of review." Martin , XXXX-XXXX at p. 6, n. 7, 784 So.2d at 632 (citing Anderson, 583 So.2d at 832 ). | 6 | 2004–2012 |
Daigle v. US Fidelity and Guar. Ins. Co.
green
2 sentences2006Id. 2001Daigle v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Company, 94-0304, pp. 6-7 (La.App. 1 Cir. 5/5/95), 655 So.2d 431, 436 . | 4 | 1996–2006 |
Smith v. Davill Petroleum Co., Inc.
green
2 sentences2002Smith v. Davill Petroleum Co., Inc ., 97-1596 at pp. 4-5, 744 So.2d at 27 . 2002Smith v. Davill Petroleum Co., Inc., 97-1596 at pp. 4-5, 744 So.2d at 27 . | 3 | 2002–2002 |
Hammons v. St. Paul ex rel. St. Paul
green
2 sentences2020Second, “[a]fter determining that the trial court correctly applied its standard of review as to the jury verdict, the appellate court reviews the JNOV using the manifest error standard of review.” Id., 12-0346, 12-0347, p. 6, 101 So.3d at 1010-11 . 2018Second, "[a]fter determining that the trial court correctly applied its standard of review as to the jury verdict, the appellate court reviews the JNOV using the manifest error standard of review." Id. , 2012-0346 at p. 6, 101 So.3d at 1010 -11 . | 2 | 2018–2020 |
Davis v. Fenerty
neutral
2 sentences2015Davis v. Fenerty, 04-283 (La.App. 5 Cir. 12/14/04) , 892 So.2d 55, 58 ; Anderson v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc., 583 So.2d 829, 832 (La.1991). 2015Davis v. Fenerty, 04-283 (La.App. 5 Cir. 12/14/04) , 892 So.2d 55, 58 ; Anderson v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc., 583 So.2d 829, 832 (La.1991). | wTrial Court’s Grant of JNOV on General Damages To begin, we must first determine whether the trial court erred in granting the JNOV. | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Boxie v. Lemoine
neutral
2 sentences2010“We review the trial court’s award of damages pursuant to the JNOV using the manifest error standard of review.” Boxie v. LeMoine, 07-905, p. 16 (La.App. 3 Cir. 7/16/08), 988 So.2d 309, 320 , writ denied, 08-2014, 08-2019 (La.11/10/08), 996 So.2d 1071 . 2009Boxie v. Lemoine, 07-905 (La.App. 3 Cir. 7/16/08) , 988 So.2d 309 , writs denied, 08-2014, 08-2019 (La.11/10/08), 996 So.2d 1071 , (citing Davis, 774 So.2d 84 ). | 2 | 2009–2010 |
Boxie v. Lemoine
neutral
2 sentences2010“We review the trial court’s award of damages pursuant to the JNOV using the manifest error standard of review.” Boxie v. LeMoine, 07-905, p. 16 (La.App. 3 Cir. 7/16/08), 988 So.2d 309, 320 , writ denied, 08-2014, 08-2019 (La.11/10/08), 996 So.2d 1071 . 2009Boxie v. Lemoine, 07-905 (La.App. 3 Cir. 7/16/08) , 988 So.2d 309 , writs denied, 08-2014, 08-2019 (La.11/10/08), 996 So.2d 1071 , (citing Davis, 774 So.2d 84 ). | 2 | 2009–2010 |
Clement v. Frey
green
1 sentence2022Bigelow v. Crescent Title, L.L.C., 997 So.2d at 87. 13 “The law provides we must give great deference to the allocation of fault as determined by the trier of fact.” Fontenot v. Patterson Ins., 09-0669, p. 22 (La. 10/20/09), 23 So.3d 259, 274 (citing Clement v. Frey, 95-1119, 95-1163, p. 7 (La. 1/16/96), 666 So.2d 607, 610 ). “[T]he allocation of fault is not an exact science, or the search for one precise ratio, but rather an acceptable range, and that any allocation by the factfinder within that range cannot be clearly wrong.” Fontenot, 09-0669, p. 22, 23 So.3d at 274 (citing Foley v. Enterg | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Foley v. Entergy Louisiana, Inc.
green
1 sentence2022Bigelow v. Crescent Title, L.L.C., 997 So.2d at 87. 13 “The law provides we must give great deference to the allocation of fault as determined by the trier of fact.” Fontenot v. Patterson Ins., 09-0669, p. 22 (La. 10/20/09), 23 So.3d 259, 274 (citing Clement v. Frey, 95-1119, 95-1163, p. 7 (La. 1/16/96), 666 So.2d 607, 610 ). “[T]he allocation of fault is not an exact science, or the search for one precise ratio, but rather an acceptable range, and that any allocation by the factfinder within that range cannot be clearly wrong.” Fontenot, 09-0669, p. 22, 23 So.3d at 274 (citing Foley v. Enterg | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Skillman v. Riverside Baptist Church of Jefferson Parish
neutral
1 sentence2019Id. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Jackson v. TULANE MEDICAL CENTER HOSP.
green
1 sentence2010In Jackson v. Tulane Medical Center Hosp. and Clinic, 2005-1594 (La.10/17/06), 942 So.2d 509, 513 , the supreme court stated that to reverse a factfinder’s determination, an appellate court must review the record in its entirety: and (1) find that a reasonable factual basis does not exist for the finding, and (2) further determine that the record establishes that the factfinder is clearly wrong or manifestly erroneous. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Adams v. Parish of East Baton Rouge
green
2 sentences2009Adams v. Parish of East Baton Rouge, 00-0424, p. 7 (La.App. 1st Cir.11/14/01), 804 So.2d 679, 687 , writ denied, 02-0448 (La.4/19/02), 813 So.2d 1090 . 2009Adams v. Parish of East Baton Rouge, 00-0424, p. 7 (La.App. 1st Cir.11/14/01), 804 So.2d 679, 687 , writ denied, 02-0448 (La.4/19/02), 813 So.2d 1090 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Adams v. Parish of East Baton Rouge
green
2 sentences2009Adams v. Parish of East Baton Rouge, 00-0424, p. 7 (La.App. 1st Cir.11/14/01), 804 So.2d 679, 687 , writ denied, 02-0448 (La.4/19/02), 813 So.2d 1090 . 2009Adams v. Parish of East Baton Rouge, 00-0424, p. 7 (La.App. 1st Cir.11/14/01), 804 So.2d 679, 687 , writ denied, 02-0448 (La.4/19/02), 813 So.2d 1090 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Yohn v. Brandon
green
1 sentence2003Yohn v. Brandon, 01-1896 (La.App. 1st Cir.9/27/02), 835 So.2d 580, 585 , writ denied, 02-2592 (La.12/13/02), 831 So.2d 989 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Yohn v. Brandon
green
1 sentence2003Yohn v. Brandon, 01-1896 (La.App. 1st Cir.9/27/02), 835 So.2d 580, 585 , writ denied, 02-2592 (La.12/13/02), 831 So.2d 989 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Joseph v. Broussard Rice Mill, Inc.
green
1 sentence2003Anderson v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc., at p. 832. [Boldface emphasis added.] The language that has not been highlighted in boldface in the quote above is consistent with the Louisiana Supreme Court’s decisions in Joseph v. Broussard, 2000-0628 (La.10/30/00), 772 So.2d 94 , and Scott v. Hospital Serv. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Griffin v. Louisiana Sheriff's Auto Risk
green
1 sentence2002Griffin v. Louisiana Sheriff’s Auto Risk Association, 802 So.2d at 711 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
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.