DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

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.

  • Creel v. St. Charles Gaming Co., Inc. 707 So. 2d 475 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., Spillers v. Montgomery Ward & Co.
  • O'RILEY v. City of Shreveport 706 So. 2d 213 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
    Youn, 623 So.2d at 1261 ; Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • McCrery v. Willis Knighton Medical Center 705 So. 2d 753 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Nusloch v. Browning-Ferris Services, Inc. 703 So. 2d 794 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
    Co., 625 So.2d at 1340; Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Riley v. Reliance Ins. Co. 703 So. 2d 158 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
    Youn, supra ; Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., Spillers v. Montgomery Ward & Co. Inc.
  • Richard v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 702 So. 2d 79 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
    Youn, 623 So.2d at 1261 ; *88 Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Haynes v. Calcasieu Medical Transp., Inc. 702 So. 2d 1024 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., Spillers v. Montgomery Ward & Co.
  • Baker v. Freeman 702 So. 2d 1140 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
    239 , (1963) through Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., and through Reck 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.
  • Viator v. Liverpool & London SS Protection and Indem. Ass'n 701 So. 2d 487 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
    Coco v. Winston Industries, *496 Inc., (La.
  • Walker v. McCartney 700 So. 2d 898 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1997
    Co., 625 So.2d at 1340; Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.
  • Manuel v. City of Jeanerette 702 So. 2d 709 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
    According to Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., the appropriate award is the highest reasonable award the fact finder could have awarded had it not abused its discretion.
  • Bellard v. South Cent. Bell Telephone Co. 702 So. 2d 695 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Ruiz v. Oniate 697 So. 2d 1373 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
    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.
  • Futch v. Attwood 698 So. 2d 958 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., Spillers v. Montgomery Ward & Co.
  • Powell v. Regional Transit Authority 695 So. 2d 1326 La. 1997
  • Coscino v. Wolfley 696 So. 2d 257 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Garza v. Fontenot 696 So. 2d 194 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
    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.
  • Warner v. City of New Orleans 694 So. 2d 1231 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
    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.
  • Southern v. Lyons 696 So. 2d 128 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Morehead v. Ford Motor Co. 694 So. 2d 650 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., Foster v. Lafayette Ins.
  • Riser v. Acadiana Limousine Service 693 So. 2d 330 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., Spillers v. Montgomery Ward & Co.
  • Dauzat v. Canal Ins. Co. 692 So. 2d 739 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.
  • Guillory v. Ins. Co. of North America 692 So. 2d 1029 La. 1997
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Aycock v. Gulf Coast Transp., Inc. 692 So. 2d 1334 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
    See Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc.
  • Meche v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 692 So. 2d 544 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
    239 , (1963) through Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., and through Reck 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.
  • Trahan v. Savage Industries, Inc. 692 So. 2d 490 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., Spillers v. Montgomery Ward & Co.
  • Broussard v. Romero 691 So. 2d 1265 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
    Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc.
  • Carter v. Brookshire Grocery Co. 690 So. 2d 933 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., Maynor v. Vosburg, 25922 (La.App.
  • Badeaux v. STATE, DOTD 690 So. 2d 203 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1997
    Co., 625 So.2d at 1340 ; Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.
  • Merritt v. Karcioglu 687 So. 2d 1002 La. 1997
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., Spillers v. Montgomery Ward & Co.
  • Todd v. State 685 So. 2d 313 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1997
    art.1999; Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.
  • Baumgarten v. Daigle 689 So. 2d 687 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Roig v. Travelers Ins. Co. 694 So. 2d 362 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1997
    Co., 625 So.2d at 1340; Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.
  • Manville v. Citizen 689 So. 2d 578 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
    Perkins, (citing Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., ).
  • Adams v. Marathon Oil Co. 688 So. 2d 75 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1997
    Co., : 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 *81 abuse of that discretion, Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Giambrone v. Miller 688 So. 2d 53 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
    Co., 625 So.2d at 1340 ; Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Lott v. Lebon 687 So. 2d 612 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.
  • Baudoin v. Opie 685 So. 2d 553 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc.
  • Stewart v. Winn Dixie Louisiana, Inc. 686 So. 2d 907 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1996
    239 , (1963) through Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., and through Reck 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.
  • Moore v. Safeway, Inc. 700 So. 2d 831 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    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."
  • Williams v. State, ex rel. Department of Wildlife & Fisheries 684 So. 2d 1018 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    Andrus, 670 So.2d at 1210 ; Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Hollenbeck v. Oceaneering Intern., Inc. 685 So. 2d 163 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    See Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Charles v. Cecil Chatman Plumbing & Heating Co. 686 So. 2d 43 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    In assessing general damages where a trial court has awarded none, appellate courts are constrained to the guidelines set forth under Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., to award the lowest amount that would have been within the discretion of the trial court.
  • Hebert v. Podiatry Ins. Co. of America 688 So. 2d 1107 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., Spillers v. Montgomery Ward & Co.
  • Carter v. Baham 683 So. 2d 299 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
  • Louisiana Farms v. LA. Dept. of Wildlife 685 So. 2d 1086 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
    239 , (1963) through Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., and through Reck 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.
  • Matthews v. Rhodes United Fidelity Funeral Home 680 So. 2d 1375 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    Andrus, 670 So.2d at 1210 ; Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Sallis v. City of Bossier City 680 So. 2d 1333 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.
  • Pierce v. Milford 688 So. 2d 1093 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    It was not until Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., that damages for lost earning capacity became separately stylized as such.
  • Pierce v. Milford 688 So. 2d 1093 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
    It was not until Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., that damages for lost earning capacity became separately stylized as such.