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.

  • Lee v. State 751 So. 2d 321 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    Andrus v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 95-0801, p. 8 (La.3/22/96), 670 * See also Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Whitehead v. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. 758 So. 2d 211 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Hymel ex rel. Hymel v. Thomas 758 So. 2d 201 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc.
  • Wainwright v. Fontenot 750 So. 2d 1077 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc.
  • Guillot v. Valley Forge Ins. Co. 753 So. 2d 891 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
    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.
  • Duncan v. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. 747 So. 2d 656 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.
  • Cone v. National Emergency Services, Inc. 747 So. 2d 1085 La. 1999
    Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc., (La.
  • Fontenot v. Omni Ins. Group 745 So. 2d 716 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
    p. 8; 1210 citing Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc.
  • Cheramie v. Contract Haulers, Inc. 754 So. 2d 987 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
  • Gray Ins. Co. v. Hunter 752 So. 2d 200 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
    239 , (1963) through Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., and through Reck [3] to the present case is that the discretion vested in the trier of *202 fact is "great," and even vast, so that an appellate court should rarely disturb an award of general damages.
  • Courteaux v. State Ex Rel. Dept. of Transp. 745 So. 2d 91 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
    1059 , 127 L.Ed.2d 379 (1994); Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., Spillers v. Montgomery Ward & Co. Inc.
  • Dixie Sav. and Loan Ass'n v. Pitre 751 So. 2d 911 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., Theriot v. Allstate Ins.
  • Blades v. Olivier 740 So. 2d 755 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    Andrus, 670 So.2d at 1210 ; Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Johnson v. Louisiana Power & Light Co. 740 So. 2d 720 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., The standard of review of general damage awards is difficult to express and is necessarily non-specific, and the requirement of an articulated basis for disturbing such awards gives little guidance as to what articulation suffices to justify modification of a generous or stingy award.
  • James v. Beauregard Elec. Co-Op., Inc. 736 So. 2d 353 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Lederer v. Famous Entertainment, Inc. 732 So. 2d 1277 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
    While recognizing that, as in the quantum area, there is great uncertainty in the allocation of fault, the court adopted the rule in Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., which pointed out that the ultimate determination by an appellate court as to whether a given judge or jury abused their `much discretion' as a matter of law is a judgment call.
  • Buras v. Neipman 735 So. 2d 841 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    See Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Mustiful v. Strickland 732 So. 2d 741 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    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 dam *745 ages is the judgment of the trial court which is reviewed on appeal under the constraints of Coco [v. Winston Industries, Inc., ].
  • Thibodeaux v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 729 So. 2d 769 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    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 *771 to the lowest point reasonably within the discretion afforded that court.
  • McGinnis v. Piccadilly Cafeteria, Inc. 732 So. 2d 659 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    See Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc.
  • Lilley v. BOARD OF SUP'RS OF STATE UNIV. 735 So. 2d 696 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., Spillers v. Montgomery Ward & Co., (La.
  • Crews v. Babin 732 So. 2d 551 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
    [Citing Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., ] "It is never appropriate for a Court of Appeal, having found that the trial court has abused its discretion, simply to decide what it considers an appropriate award on the basis of the evidence."
  • Marchand v. Woods 729 So. 2d 186 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    2324.1; American Motorist Insurance Company v. American Rent-All, Inc., Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Edwards v. Daugherty 729 So. 2d 1112 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.App.
  • Pryor v. UNITED SERVICES AUTO. ASSOC. 729 So. 2d 658 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., cert.
  • Jackson v. Palmer 727 So. 2d 636 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., cert.
  • Hardy v. Poydras Properties 737 So. 2d 793 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Kistner v. King 726 So. 2d 68 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Young v. Louisiana Medical Mut. Ins. Co. 725 So. 2d 539 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.
  • Holt v. Cannon Exp. Corp. 722 So. 2d 433 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
    Anderson, supra; Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.
  • Havard v. Children's Clinic of Southwest Louisiana, Inc. 722 So. 2d 1178 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    Following the principles set forth in Coco v. Winston Ind., Inc., we increase the award for survival damages to $25,000.00.
  • Smith v. Davill Petroleum Co., Inc. 744 So. 2d 23 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    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.
  • Bell v. Ayio 731 So. 2d 893 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Fox v. Texaco, Inc. 722 So. 2d 1064 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    Andrus v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 95-0801, p. 8 (La.3/22/96); ; See also Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Dufrene v. Willingham 721 So. 2d 1026 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
    Our Coco ( Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.
  • Turner v. Parish of Jefferson Through Dept. of Recreation 721 So. 2d 64 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.
  • Genusa v. Robert 720 So. 2d 166 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
    239 , (1963) through Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., 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.
  • Hopstetter v. Nichols 716 So. 2d 458 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Abuan v. Smedvig Tankships, Ltd. 717 So. 2d 1194 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
    Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc.
  • Washington v. Daste 749 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    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.
  • Muse v. Dunbar 716 So. 2d 110 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
    Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc.
  • Cormier v. THE Ins. Co. 716 So. 2d 387 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
    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.
  • Brasseaux v. Town of Mamou 713 So. 2d 742 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., Spillers v. Montgomery Ward & Co.
  • Harrington v. La. State Bd. of Elementary and Secondary Educ. 714 So. 2d 845 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
    at 1260; Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Allstate Insurance v. Reynolds 712 So. 2d 981 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    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 comb should rarely disturb an award of general damages.
  • Williams v. City of Baton Rouge 715 So. 2d 15 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    In Youn v. Maritime Overseas Corp., 623 So.2d at 1260 , (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."
  • Landry v. Clement 711 So. 2d 829 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
    Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc.
  • Johnson v. Clark 710 So. 2d 316 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    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 the constraints of Coco [v. Winston Industries, Inc., ].
  • Bell v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co. 707 So. 2d 102 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
    Hae Woo Youn v. Maritime Overseas Corp., 92-3017 (La.10/7/93)
  • Sanders v. International Indem. Co. 708 So. 2d 772 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
    239 , (1963) through Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., ...