772 So. 2d 306 - Hammock v. LSUMC’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The trial court has much discretion in the assessment of damages in tort cases. La. C.C. 2324.1. The discretion vested in the trier of fact is "great," and even vast, so that an appellate court should rarely disturb an award of general damages. An appellate court may disturb a damage award only when the record clearly reveals that the trial court abused its discretion in making the award, based on the facts and circumstances peculiar to the case and the individual under consideration. Hae Woo Youn v. Maritime Overseas Corp., 623 So.2d 1257 (La.1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1114 , 114 S.Ct. 1059 , 127 L.Ed.2d 379 (1994). Only after an articulated analysis of the facts discloses an abuse of discretion is examination of prior awards in similar cases proper; an abusively low award is raised to the lowest amount the trier of fact could have reasonably awarded, while an abusively high award is reduced to the highest amount the trier of fact could have reasonably awarded. Powell v. RTA, 96-0715 (La.6/18/97), 695 So.2d 1326 ; Dixon v. Tillman, 29,483 (La.App.2d Cir.5/7/97), 694 So.2d 585 , writ denied, 97-1430 (La.9/19/97), 701 So.2d 174 . The proper procedure for examining whether an award is excessive is to determine whether the amount can be supported under the interpretation of the evidence most favorable to the plaintiff which reasonably could have been made by the trier of fact; likewise, to determine if an award is inadequate, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favo”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 786 So. 2d 269 - McCullin v. US Agencies Cas. Ins. Co.

2. “Even young children are entitled to an award for loss of earning capacity. See Williams v. City of Monroe, [27,065 (La. App. 2d Cir.7/3/95), 658 So.2d 820 ] supra. (award for loss of earning capacity to a six-year old affirmed); Hollingsworth v. Bowers, [96-257 (La.App. 3d Cir.12/30/96), 690 So.2d 825 ] (award for loss of earning capacity for newborn affirmed); Jackson v. Huang, 514 So.2d 727 (La.App. 2d Cir.1987), writs denied, 518 So.2d 1050 , 519 So.2d 119 (La.1988) (award for loss of earning capacity for newborn affirmed). Awards for lost income are speculative and cannot be calculated with absolute certainty. Williams v. City of Monroe, supra . The trial court is accorded broad discretion in assessing them, but there must be a factual basis in the record for the award. Id. Credibility determinations, including the evaluation of expert testimony, are factual issues to be resolved by the trier of fact. Stobart v. State, Through DOTD, 617 So.2d 880 (La.1993); Orea v. Scallan, 32,622 (La.App.2d Cir.1/26/00), 750 So.2d 483 ; Nichols v. Nichols, 32,219 (La.App.2d Cir.9/22/99), 747 So.2d 120 . Where the testimony conflicts, the fact finder's reasonable evaluations of credibility and reasonable inferences of fact should not be disturbed upon review, even where the appellate court may feel that its own evaluations and inferences are more reasonable than those of the jury. Stobart v. State, Through DOTD, supra .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Johnson v. State Ex Rel. DOTD

3. “time spent testifying, time spent in preparatory work for trial, time spend away from regular duties while waiting to testify, the extent and nature of the work performed, and the knowledge, attainments and skill of the expert. Additional considerations include helpfulness of the expert's report and testimony to the trial court, the amount in controversy, the complexity of the problem addressed by the expert and awards to experts in similar cases.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 847 So. 2d 789 - Prestridge v. Elliott