Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Miller v. Thomas, 246 So. 2d 16.

152 citing documents.

Twiner v. Dinvaut 90 So. 3d 1107 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
ward for general damages, an appellate court must find that the trial judge or jury has *1114 abused the ‘much discretion’ accorded by the codal provision; (2) The awards in other cases serve only as an aid in determining whether there has been an abuse of discretion and rivet no steel frame of uniformity.’ Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc., , (1971).
Bush v. Arrow International 646 So. 2d 1173 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Co., , (1971); Lomenick v. Schaeffler, 250 La.
Reid v. State Through DOTD 637 So. 2d 618 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
Melancon v. Hyatt Corp. 589 So. 2d 1186 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., , (1971).
Ducote v. State 583 So. 2d 590 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
See, , (1971); Lomenick v. Schoeffler, 250 La.
Warner v. GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA 583 So. 2d 61 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
App. 2d Cir.1984), writ granted, , writ denied, , affirmed, (1985); , (1971).
Socorro v. Orleans Levee Bd. 561 So. 2d 739 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
Focusing an informed judgment tempered by a fair recognition of the discretion vested in the trial judge or jury (see the Chief Justice's comment in Miller v. Thomas, supra) [ , (1971)] is no simple task resulting in uniform result among judges engaged in appellate review.
Clouatre v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. 557 So. 2d 696 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
1979); , (1971); Lomenick v. Schoeffler, 250 La.
Montgomery v. Opelousas General Hosp. 546 So. 2d 621 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
1976); , (1971); Black v. Ebasco Services, Inc., (La.App.
Lee v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co. 540 So. 2d 1083 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., , (1971); Black v. Ebasco Services, Inc., (La.App.
Lindsay v. Toys 499 So. 2d 462 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
App. 3d Cir.1976), reversed as to quantum, , (1971); (La.App.
Bonner v. Watkins Motor Lines, Inc. 494 So. 2d 1363 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
1976); , (1971); (La.App.
Malmay v. Sizemore 474 So. 2d 1358 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., supra; , (1971); Black v. Ebasco Services, Inc., *1364 (La.App.
Daniels v. Allstate Ins. Co. 469 So. 2d 352 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
App. 3rd Cir.1975)], supra; , (1971); (La.App.
Norris v. Pool Well Service, Inc. 460 So. 2d 1117 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
1974); , (1971); (La.App.
Cutchall v. Great American Pump Co. 460 So. 2d 1106 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., supra ; , (1971); *1115 (La.App.
Winterrowd v. Travelers Indem. Co. 452 So. 2d 269 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., , (1971); Black v. Ebasco Services, Inc., (La.App.
Morgan v. Willis-Knighton Medical Center 456 So. 2d 650 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., , (1971); Black v. Ebasco Services, Inc., (La.App.
Burnham v. Frey-Shoemaker-Colbert-Brodnax 445 So. 2d 477 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., Black v. Ebasco Services, Inc., (La.App.
Arena v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc. 441 So. 2d 73 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
See, , (1971); Lomenick v. Schoeffler, 250 La.
Jenkins v. Jenkins 439 So. 2d 504 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
Owens v. Hartford Insurance Co. 420 So. 2d 1193 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
(1971); Lomenick v. Schoeffler, 250 La.
Alphonso v. CHARITY HOSP. OF LOUISIANA, ETC. 413 So. 2d 982 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
this court had reduced a district court award of $60,000.00 to $25,000.00 for facial lacerations and permanent scarring of a young female.
Faulk v. Cagle Supply, Inc. 412 So. 2d 1020 La. 1982
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., , (1971).
Walton v. William Wolf Baking Co., Inc. 406 So. 2d 168 La. 1981
McElroy v. Vest 407 So. 2d 25 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
Provost v. A. E. Gravois & Sons, Inc. 398 So. 2d 1287 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
More specifically, Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., , (1971) as follows: “(1) To modify the amount of an award for general damages, an appellate court must find that the trial judge or jury has abused the ‘much discretion’ accorded by the codal provision.
Richard v. Guillory 392 So. 2d 777 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
(1971); Burt v. Aetna Life & Casualty Insurance Company, (La.App.
Olinde v. State 391 So. 2d 1243 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
Hukill v. US Fidelity and Guaranty Co. 386 So. 2d 172 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
(1971), a jury awarded $60,000.00 in general damages to a seventeen-year-old female guest passenger who had sustained painful injuries resulting in more than one hundred sutures being taken in her face.
Dupree v. Pechinay Saint Gobain Co. 369 So. 2d 1075 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
(1971), the Supreme Court stated the well-settled principle that in assessing damages much discretion is left to the trial judge or jury, LSA-C.C.
Meadoux v. Hall 369 So. 2d 240 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1979
Dawson v. Piazza 371 So. 2d 283 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
In determining that the trial judge abused his discretion, , (1971) that “the awards in other cases serve only as an aid in determining whether there has been an abuse of discretion and rivet no steel frame of uniformity.” In Peterson v. Olinde Hardware and Supply Co., Inc., supra, the plaintiffs’ movable property, a color television set, two air conditioners and
Lanclos v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. 366 So. 2d 621 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1978
Arceneaux v. Domingue 365 So. 2d 1330 La. 1978
Boswell v. Roy O. Martin Lumber Co., Inc. 363 So. 2d 506 La. 1978
Ulmer v. Baton Rouge General Hospital 361 So. 2d 1238 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
(1971), the Supreme Court stated the well-settled principle that in assessing *1244 damages much discretion must be left to the judge or jury, LSA-C.C.
Fowler v. Western Union Tel. Co. 357 So. 2d 1305 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1978
(1971); Anderson v. Welding Testing Laboratory, Inc.
St. Martin v. Maryland Casualty Co. 357 So. 2d 885 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
In any event, an abuse of trial-court discretion must be clearly demonstrated by the record before an appellate court will tamper with an award of general damages.” Anderson v. Welding Testing Laboratory, Inc., supra; , (1971).
Ardoin v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. 350 So. 2d 205 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
(1971) the court reaffirmed the well settled principle that in assessing damages much discretion must be left to the judge or jury.
Billeaud v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 349 So. 2d 1379 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
Billeaud v. UNITED STATE FIDELITY & GUAR. CO. 349 So. 2d 1379 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Louisiana Gas Serv. Co. 344 So. 2d 386 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1977
Sansonni v. Jefferson Parish School Bd. 344 So. 2d 42 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1977
Gaudet v. Allstate Ins. Co. 346 So. 2d 333 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1977
959 , (1967); , (1971); Fox v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins.
Schexnayder v. Carpenter 346 So. 2d 196 La. 1977
1974); , (1971); Lomenick v. Schoeffler, 250 La.
Jefferson v. Steele 345 So. 2d 1203 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
Article 1934(3); , (1971).
Wactor v. Gurtler Hebert Const. Co. 343 So. 2d 383 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1977
Hernandez v. Showalter 344 So. 2d 1174 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
article 1934(3); , (1971); Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
Price v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. 342 So. 2d 1244 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
Anderson v. Welding Testing Laboratory, Inc., , Spillers v. Montgomery Ward & Company, Inc.