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.

  • Cooper v. City of New Orleans 680 So. 2d 1259 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    The Supreme Court confirmed that the review of an allocation of comparative fault is governed by the standard set forth in Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Holt v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. 680 So. 2d 117 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
    2d Cir.1987), citing Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Hollie v. Beauregard Parish Police Jury 680 So. 2d 1218 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Marceaux v. Gibbs 680 So. 2d 1189 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • ESTE' v. State Farm Ins. Companies 676 So. 2d 850 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., Spillers v. Montgomery Ward & Co.
  • Leatherman v. Riverside Village 676 So. 2d 1180 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    In Clement v. Frey, 95-1119, 95-1163 (La.1/16/96); , the Louisiana Supreme Court recently confirmed that the review of an allocation of comparative fault is governed by the standard set forth in Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Landreneau v. Fruge 676 So. 2d 701 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
    Under the circumstances of this case and using the Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.
  • Wartell v. Woman's & Children's Hosp. 676 So. 2d 632 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Egan v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. 677 So. 2d 1027 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.
  • Busby v. St. Paul Ins. Co. 673 So. 2d 320 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    1/16/96); , the Louisiana Supreme Court recently confirmed that the review of an allocation of comparative fault is governed by the standard set forth in Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Roberts v. Lowry 673 So. 2d 1323 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    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.
  • Lachico v. First National Bank Shares, Inc. 673 So. 2d 305 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    1999 and 2324.1; American Motorist Insurance Company v. American Rent-All, Inc., 579 So.2d at 433 ; Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., Callender v. Del-champs, Inc., (La.App.
  • Andrus v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 670 So. 2d 1206 La. 1996
    Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc.
  • Perritt v. Commercial Union Ins. Co. 673 So. 2d 215 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • LeBlanc v. Continental Grain Co., Inc. 672 So. 2d 951 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1996
    In so doing, the Court applied the standard enunciated in Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., which had generally been held to apply to quantum awards.
  • Callihan v. Town of Vinton 668 So. 2d 735 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., Spillers v. Montgomery Ward & Co.
  • Sanders v. Zeagler 670 So. 2d 748 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
    The court of appeal reviews the judgment of the trial court under the constraints of Coco v. Winston *758 Industries, Inc., : an appellate court can disturb a quantum award made by the trial court only if the record reveals that the trial court abused its discretion.
  • Thomas v. Busby 670 So. 2d 603 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
    Therefore, in accordance with Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., I would reduce the award to the highest amount which is reasonably within the trial court's discretion.
  • Head v. Pendleton Memorial Methodist Hosp. 669 So. 2d 504 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
    art. 1999; Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Merritt v. Karcioglu 668 So. 2d 469 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., Spillers v. Montgomery Ward & Co.
  • Clement v. Frey 666 So. 2d 607 La. 1996
    There are other court of appeal cases, however, which apply the Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., highest/lowest formula.
  • New Orleans Riverwalk Assoc. v. RP GUASTELLA, INC. 664 So. 2d 151 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
    art. 1999; Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.
  • Wilson v. NATIONAL UNION FIRE INS. OF LOUISIANA 665 So. 2d 1252 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
  • Sloan v. Dailey 664 So. 2d 792 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., Spillers v. Montgomery Ward & Co.
  • Lawrence v. Department of Transportation & Development 665 So. 2d 551 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
    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.
  • Perkins v. Guaranty Nat. Ins. Co. 667 So. 2d 559 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Boudreaux v. Blank 664 So. 2d 705 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Watkins v. Bethley 662 So. 2d 839 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.
  • Graham v. Willis-Knighton Medical Center 662 So. 2d 161 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
    Inc., bearing in mind that a court of appeal's initial award of damages is not limited to the lowest or highest that could be affirmed, but is to be a just amount based on the record.
  • Oxley v. Sabine River Authority 663 So. 2d 497 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
    *510 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....
  • Mayeaux v. Denny's Inc. 663 So. 2d 822 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • STATE EX REL. DEPT. OF SOCIAL SERV. v. Southern Baptist Hosp. 663 So. 2d 443 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., Bitoun v. Landry, 302 So.2d *457 278 (La.1974); Spillers v. Montgomery Ward & Co. Inc., Youn v. Maritime Overseas Corp., supra .
  • Hattori v. Peairs 662 So. 2d 509 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
    La.Civ.Code art. 2324.1; American Motorist Insurance Company v. American Rent-All, Inc., Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., Callender v. Delchamps, Inc., (La.App.
  • Dush v. State ex rel. Department of Health & Human Services 663 So. 2d 363 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
    239 , (1963) through Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., and through Reck to the present case is that the discretion is vested in the trier of fact is ‘great,’ and even vast, so that an appellate court should rarely disturb an award of general damages.
  • Olivier v. Allstate Ins. Co. 663 So. 2d 207 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Branch v. City of Lafayette 663 So. 2d 216 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Claudet v. Weyrich 662 So. 2d 131 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
    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.
  • Blair v. Imperial Inn, Inc. 662 So. 2d 150 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
    1059 , 127 L.Ed.2d 379 (1994); Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., Spillers v. Montgomery Ward & Co. Inc.
  • Rivard v. Petroleum Transport Co., Inc. 663 So. 2d 755 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
    LIGA suggests that the trial court abused its discretion in making its awards for loss of consortium, citing Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Boddie v. State 661 So. 2d 617 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
    Durkee v. City of Shreveport, supra .
  • Johnson v. Automotive Cas. Ins. Co. 661 So. 2d 633 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Boutte v. Nissan Motor Corp. 663 So. 2d 154 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Maranto v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. 661 So. 2d 503 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
  • Arnold v. Airborne Freight Corp. 667 So. 2d 1063 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
    See Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., cert.
  • Akerman v. Dawes 658 So. 2d 1270 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
    239 , (1963) through Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.
  • Kilpatrick v. Alliance Cas. & Reinsurance Co. 663 So. 2d 62 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
    Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc.
  • Williams v. City of Monroe 658 So. 2d 820 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
    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.
  • Degruise v. Houma Courier Newspaper Corp. 657 So. 2d 580 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
    art. 2324.1; American Motorist Insurance Company v. American Rent-All, Inc., 579 So.2d at 433; Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., Callender v. Delchamps, Inc., (La.App.
  • Holland v. Winn Dixie Louisiana, Inc. 658 So. 2d 815 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
    1st Cir.1987), writ denied, citing Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Schexneider v. Louisiana Dept. of Health and Hospitals 660 So. 2d 508 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
    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.