Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Revon v. American Guarantee & Liability Ins. Co., 296 So. 2d 257.

31 citing documents.

Bush v. Arrow International 646 So. 2d 1173 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Co., include: “The appellate review of awards for general damages is limited to determining whether the trial court abused its great discretion.
Ard v. Samedan Oil Corp. 475 So. 2d 384 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Tyler v. Richardson 476 So. 2d 899 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
Desormeaux v. Eastin 467 So. 2d 115 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Morvant v. Smith 463 So. 2d 75 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
Green v. Farmers Ins. Co. 412 So. 2d 1136 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
Hunter v. OFFICE OF HEALTH SERVICES, ETC. 385 So. 2d 928 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1980
Wexler v. Occhipinti 378 So. 2d 1073 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1979
4th Cir. 1974), damages amended ; (La.App.
Cheatham v. City of New Orleans 378 So. 2d 369 La. 1979
Wilson v. Magee 367 So. 2d 314 La. 1979
Co., Fox v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins.
Lanclos v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. 366 So. 2d 621 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1978
Co., Spillers v. Montgomery Ward & Co., ; Fox v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins.
McLaughlin v. HOME INDEMNITY INS. CO. 361 So. 2d 1227 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
4th Cir. 1973), amended on other grounds
Boswell v. Roy O. Martin Lumber Co., Inc. 363 So. 2d 506 La. 1978
Co., include: "The appellate review of awards for general damages is limited to determining whether the trial court abused its great discretion.
Billeaud v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 349 So. 2d 1379 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
Co., Spillers v. Montgomery Ward & Co., (La.
Billeaud v. UNITED STATE FIDELITY & GUAR. CO. 349 So. 2d 1379 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
Co., Spillers v. Montgomery Ward & Co., (La.
Gaudet v. Allstate Ins. Co. 346 So. 2d 333 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1977
Co., Anderson v. Welding Testing Laboratory, Inc.
Schexnayder v. Carpenter 346 So. 2d 196 La. 1977
Co., Spillers v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Fox v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins.
Profit v. Linn 346 So. 2d 253 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
art. 1934(3); Revon v. American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Co.
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc. 341 So. 2d 332 La. 1977
Co., Spillers v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Fox v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins.
Stewart v. National Food Stores of Louisiana, Inc. 341 So. 2d 1177 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
Co., La., (1974); Spillers v. Montgomery Ward & Company, Inc., La., (1974).
Tims v. Government Employees Insurance Co. 339 So. 2d 508 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
Louisiana Civil Code Article 1934(3); Revon v. American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Co.
Castille v. Folck 338 So. 2d 328 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
Spillers v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc., Revon v. American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Company
Windham v. Security Ins. Co. of Hartford 337 So. 2d 577 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1976
[9] See Revon v. American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Company
Littell v. Wright 322 So. 2d 895 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
See Article 1934(3), Civil Code; and Revon v. American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Company, for a review of the jurisprudence in this area.
Anderson v. Sciambra 310 So. 2d 128 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1975
Co., La.App.1973, (amended ).
Guidry v. Canal Insurance Co. 313 So. 2d 860 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
Co., include: “The appellate review of awards for general damages is limited to determining whether the trial court abused its great discretion.
Johnson v. McKay 306 So. 2d 417 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
See also, Revon v. American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Company, (La.
Levron v. Dupre 307 So. 2d 107 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
Spillers v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc., La., ; Revon v. American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Company, La., .
Pear v. Labiche's Inc. 305 So. 2d 740 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
Anderson v. Welding Testing Laboratory, Inc. 304 So. 2d 351 La. 1974
Co., include: The appellate review of awards for general damages is limited to determining whether the trial court abused its great discretion.
Floyd v. Silvers 303 So. 2d 198 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1974
Co., where the Supreme Court stated: “ ‘From these decisions, two principles emerge: (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; (2) The awards in other cases serve only as an