DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., 341 So. 2d 332.

1757 citing documents.

  • Williams v. Taylor 803 So. 2d 268 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
    Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc.
  • Dumas v. City of New Orleans 803 So. 2d 1001 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
    Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc.
  • Clark v. Burchard 802 So. 2d 824 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
    239 , (1963) through Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., and through Reck [v. Stevens, ] to the present case is that 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.
  • Thornton v. National RR Passenger Corp. 802 So. 2d 816 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., Spillers v. Montgomery Ward & Co., (La.
  • Adams v. Parish of East Baton Rouge 804 So. 2d 679 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    DAMAGES Once a trial court has granted a JNOV on the issues of damages and has *700 conducted its own independent assessment of the damages as trier of fact, that decision becomes the judgment of the trial court and is reviewed on appeal for an abuse of discretion under the standard set forth in Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Gunn v. Robertson 801 So. 2d 555 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
    DAMAGES [1-6]Our jurisprudence has consistently held that in the assessment of damages, much discretion is left to the judge or jury, and upon appellate review such awards will be disturbed only when there has been a clear abuse of that discretion, Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Emery v. Owens-Corporation 813 So. 2d 441 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    1059 , 127 L.Ed.2d 379 (1994), (citing Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., ), the court stated: "Only after such a determination of an abuse of discretion is a resort to prior awards appropriate and then for the purpose of determining the highest or lowest point which is reasonably within that discretion."
  • Hollier v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 799 So. 2d 793 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
    Damages General In Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., the supreme court clarified the standard of review in instances in which an appellate court questions the adequacy of the trial court's monetary award.
  • Davis v. Hoffman 800 So. 2d 1028 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Smith v. Quarles Drilling Co. 801 So. 2d 1128 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
    Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc., (La.
  • Taylor v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 796 So. 2d 802 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
  • Smith v. Clement 797 So. 2d 151 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
    Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc.
  • Leaman v. Continental Cas. Co. 798 So. 2d 285 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
    Our Coco ( Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.
  • Harvey v. STATE, DOTD 799 So. 2d 569 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
    art. 1999; Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Hebert v. Parker 796 So. 2d 19 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
    art. 1999; Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Griffin v. Louisiana Sheriff's Auto Risk 802 So. 2d 691 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    In making this determination, the trial court is not bound by the constraints imposed on appellate courts by Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., of raising the award to the lowest point reasonably within the discretion afforded that court.
  • Coleman v. Deno 787 So. 2d 446 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
    art.1999; Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Clavier v. Roberts 783 So. 2d 599 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
    Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc.
  • Abadie v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. 784 So. 2d 46 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
    On the other hand, if the answer is in the negative, then the trial court properly granted the JNOV, and its damage award based on its independent assessment of the damages is the judgment of the trial court which is reviewed on appeal under *95 the constraints of Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., supra.
  • Fusilier v. Dauterive 779 So. 2d 950 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
    In Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc., the Supreme Court clarified the standard of review in instances in which an appellate court questions the adequacy of the trial court's monetary award.
  • Sallinger v. Robichaux 775 So. 2d 437 La. 2001
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Stokes v. Stewart 774 So. 2d 1215 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.
  • Dennis v. the Finish Line, Inc. 781 So. 2d 12 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc., Broussard v. Razden, 98-2576, 98-2577 (La.App.
  • Quinn v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 774 So. 2d 1093 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., Dixon v. Tillman, 29,483 (La.
  • Singleton v. AAA Home Health, Inc. 772 So. 2d 346 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., Perkins, .
  • Thibodeaux v. Bernard 772 So. 2d 897 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
    239 , (1963) through Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., and through Reck [v. Stevens, ] to the present case is that 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.
  • Joseph v. Broussard Rice Mill, Inc. 772 So. 2d 94 La. 2000
    However, once the appellate court made that determination, we find it properly applied the manifest error rule of Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc., and its prolific progeny, when it determined that the general damage award was abusively low.
  • Duncan v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co. 773 So. 2d 670 La. 2000
    Clement, 666 So.2d at 611 ; Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Wainwright v. Fontenot 774 So. 2d 70 La. 2000
    Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc., (internal citations omitted).
  • Love v. Lewis 771 So. 2d 220 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
    [2] In Coco v. Winston, (La.1976); , the supreme court held; "Only after making the finding that the record supports that the lower court abused its much discretion can the appellate court disturb the award, and then only to the extent of lowering it (or raising it) to the highest (or lowest) point which is reasonably within the discretion afforde
  • Harris v. Carter 768 So. 2d 827 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    American Motorist Insurance Company v. American Rent-All, Inc., Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.
  • Hamilton v. AAI VENTURES, LLC 768 So. 2d 298 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    See Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Dupree v. City of New Orleans 765 So. 2d 1002 La. 2000
    Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc.
  • Bowers v. Liuzza 769 So. 2d 88 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    Co., , 1340-1341 (La.1993), as follows: Our jurisprudence has consistently held that in the assessment of damages, much discretion is left to the judge or jury, and upon appellate review such awards will be disturbed only when there has been a clear abuse of that discretion, Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Gray v. Holiday Inns, Inc. 762 So. 2d 1172 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    Co., Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • McReynolds v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation & Development 765 So. 2d 447 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    In Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., the Louisiana Supreme Court held that when reviewing the allocation of fault on appeal, the ultimate determination by an appellate court as to whether- a given judge or jury abused their discretion as a matter of law is a judgment call.
  • Lombas v. Southern Foods, Inc. 760 So. 2d 1282 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    Co., -1341 (La.1993), as follows: Our jurisprudence has consistently held that in the assessment of damages, much discretion is left to the judge or jury, and upon appellate review such awards will be disturbed only when there has been a clear abuse of that discretion, Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • McPherson v. LAKE AREA MEDICAL CENTER 767 So. 2d 102 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
    239 , (1963) through Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., and through Reck [v. Stevens, ] to the present case is that 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.
  • Sommer v. STATE, DEPT. OF TRANSP. DEVELOPMENT 758 So. 2d 923 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., cert.
  • Williams v. US Agencies Casualty Ins. Co., Inc. 758 So. 2d 1010 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., Dixon v. Tillman, 29,483 (La.App.
  • Magee v. Pittman 761 So. 2d 731 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    The review of an allocation of comparative fault is governed by the standard set forth in Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Thom v. Benson Chevrolet Co. 759 So. 2d 988 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc.
  • Ford v. STATE, EX REL. DOTD 760 So. 2d 478 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
    If the award is not manifestly erroneous, then the trial court damage award based on its independent assessment of the damages is reviewed on appeal under the constraints of Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., i.e., the abuse of discretion standard of review.
  • Leal v. Dubois 756 So. 2d 684 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
    In Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., the supreme court clarified the standard of review in instances in which an appellate court questions the adequacy of the trial court's monetary award.
  • Sommer v. State, Department of Transportation & Development 758 So. 2d 923 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., cert.
  • LeBlanc v. Stevenson 756 So. 2d 356 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
    Where an alleged tortfeasor is found to be blameless by a factfinder and comparative fault is, therefore, not assessed between the parties, an appellate court is not compelled to apply the manifestly erroneous standard of review and the Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., methodology in lowering or raising the percentages *363 of fault.
  • James v. Jones 759 So. 2d 896 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Knepper v. Robin 745 So. 2d 1248 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
    3 Cir.), writ denied, citing, Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Precht v. Case Corp. 756 So. 2d 488 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
    If the award is not manifestly erroneous, it is reviewed under the constraints of Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., i.e., the abuse of discretion standard of review.
  • Broussard v. Razden 763 So. 2d 644 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.