620 So. 2d 897 - Finnie v. Vallee’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

38 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Loss of earning capacity is not the same as lost wages. Rather, earning capacity refers to a person's potential. Earning capacity is not necessarily determined by actual loss. While the plaintiff's earnings at the time of the accident may be relevant, such figures are not necessarily indicative of his past or future lost earning capacity. The plaintiff need not be working or even in a certain profession to recover this type of award. What is being compensated is the plaintiff's lost ability to earn a certain amount, and he may recover such damages even though he may never have seen fit to take advantage of that capacity. Hobgood v. Aucoin, 574 So.2d 344 (La.1990). In determining whether a personal injury plaintiff is entitled to recover for the loss of earning capacity, the trial court should consider whether and how much plaintiff's current condition disadvantages him in the work force. The trial court should thus ask itself what plaintiff might be able to have earned but for his injuries and what he may now earn given his resulting condition. Finnie v. Vallee, 620 So.2d 897 (La.App. 4 Cir.), writ denied, 625 So.2d 1040 (La.1993). The very nature of lost earning capacity makes it impossible to measure the loss with any kind of mathematical certainty. The facts of each case must take into account a variety of factors, including the plaintiff's condition prior to the accident, his work record prior to and after the accident, his previous earnings, the likelihood of his ability”

   15 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Delphen v. Dept. of Transp. & Dev. · Richardson v. O'BYRNE

2. “A JNOV is warranted when the facts and inferences point so strongly and overwhelmingly in favor of one party that the court believes that reasonable men could not arrive at a contrary verdict. The motion should be granted only tvhen the evidence points so strongly in favor of the moving party that reasonable men could not reach different conclusions, not merely when there is a preponderance of evidence for the mover. ... [I]n making this determination, the court should not evaluate the credibility of the witnesses, and all reasonable inferences or factual questions should be resolved in favor of the non-moving party, (emphasis added.)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 52 So. 3d 203 - Joseph v. Archdiocese of New Orleans · 45 So. 3d 1152 - Burns v. CLK Investments V, L.L.C.

3. “The motion [i.e., JNOV] should be denied if there is evidence opposed to the motion which is of such quality and weight that reasonable and fair-minded persons in the exercise of impartial judgment might reach different | n conclusions.... In making this determination, the trial court should not eval uate the credibility of witnesses, and all reasonable inferences or factual questions should be resolved in favor of the non-moving party.... This rigorous standard is based upon the principle that “[w]hen there is a jury, the jury is the trier of fact.” [citations omitted] ... The appellate court “us[es] the aforementioned criteria just as the trial judge does in deciding whether to grant the motion or not”.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 52 So. 3d 203 - Joseph v. Archdiocese of New Orleans