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.

  • Dauzat v. Rapides Parish Police Jury 657 So. 2d 484 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., Spillers v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 294 So,2d 803 (La.1974).
  • Edwards v. Pelican State Mutual Insurance Co. 657 So. 2d 440 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., Migues v. Hebert, 93-1509 (La.App.
  • Tartar v. Hymes 656 So. 2d 756 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
    Co., -1341 (La.1993) the Louisiana Supreme Court said: 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., *761 (La.1977).
  • Delphen v. Dept. of Transp. & Dev. 657 So. 2d 328 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
    art. 1999; Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.
  • Black v. STATE, DEPT. OF PUBLIC SAFETY & CORR. 657 So. 2d 270 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
    Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc., (La.
  • Rowsey v. Jones 655 So. 2d 560 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Daigle v. US Fidelity and Guar. Ins. Co. 655 So. 2d 431 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
    If the answer is in the negative, then the trial court's damages 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.
  • Batiste v. New Hampshire Ins. Co. 657 So. 2d 168 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
    The court of appeal reviews the judgment of the trial court under the constraints of Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.
  • Vedros v. Public Grain Elevator of N.O., Inc. 654 So. 2d 775 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
    o.2d 1337 (La.1993), our Supreme Court succinctly stated the law of appellate review and assessment of damage awards 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.
  • Ehrman v. Holiday Inns, Inc. 653 So. 2d 732 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
    Because the trial court properly granted the JNOV, and its damage award is based on its de novo review and independent assessment of injuries and damages, the trial judge's decision is the judgment of the trial court, which is reviewed on appeal under the constraints of Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., where this court is relegated to determining whether the record supports a conclusion that $150,000 lies within the wide range of discretion accorded the trier of fact.
  • In re Morales 652 So. 2d 1095 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., Spillers v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc., cert.
  • Broussard v. Fidelity Fire & Casualty Insurance Co. 651 So. 2d 959 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
    Coco v. Winston Indust., Inc.
  • Istre v. Bratton 653 So. 2d 1205 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Shaw v. Russell 652 So. 2d 133 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Jeffery v. Thibaut Oil Co. 652 So. 2d 1021 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
  • Phillips v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc. 650 So. 2d 1259 La. Ct. App. 4th 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.
  • Budd v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 650 So. 2d 429 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., Migues v. Hebert, 93-1509 (La.App.
  • Juge v. Judson 650 So. 2d 312 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
    (5th Cir. 1988) citing Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Gaines v. Ryan's Family Steakhouse, Inc. 654 So. 2d 704 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
    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.
  • Bradford v. Winn Dixie of Louisiana, Inc. 648 So. 2d 464 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
    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.
  • Andrus v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 650 So. 2d 275 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
    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.
  • Morris v. State Farm Insurance Co. 649 So. 2d 58 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
    3d Cir.1975), judgment set aside on other grounds
  • Guidroz v. STATE, THROUGH DOTD 648 So. 2d 1361 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
    art. 2324.1; Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.
  • Detraz v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. 647 So. 2d 576 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
    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.
  • Blackshear v. Allstate Ins. Co. 647 So. 2d 589 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
    and Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., we raise the award to the lowest reasonable amount, or $50,000.00.
  • Davis v. STATE, DOTD 647 So. 2d 552 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
    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....
  • Naquin v. Teer 649 So. 2d 993 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
    and Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Jarreau v. Hirschey 650 So. 2d 1189 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
    art. 2324.1; American Motorist Insurance Company v. American Rent-All, Inc., Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., Callender v. Delchamps, Inc., (La.App.
  • Girvan v. New Orleans Pub. Serv. Inc. 646 So. 2d 481 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
    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.
  • Gygax v. Brugoto 646 So. 2d 1236 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
    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.
  • Maynor v. Vosburg 648 So. 2d 411 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
    American Motorist Insurance Co., supra ; Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.
  • Sebastien v. McKay 649 So. 2d 711 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
    "In reviewing the other elements of damages awarded, we are guided by the following: `The standard of review for quantum was enunciated by the Supreme Court in Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., wherein it stated (at 334): `We do reemphasize, however, that before a Court of Appeal can disturb an award made by a trial court that the record must clearly reveal that the trier of fact abused its discretion in making its award.
  • Bush v. Arrow International 646 So. 2d 1173 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
    “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 afforded that court.” Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., and cites therein.
  • Alleman v. Brownie Drilling Co. 647 So. 2d 371 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
  • Koepp v. Sea-Land Service, Inc. 645 So. 2d 1269 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
    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.
  • Thibodeaux v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co. 647 So. 2d 351 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
    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.
  • Broussard v. Meaux 649 So. 2d 661 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Fitch v. Vintage Petroleum, Inc. 652 So. 2d 998 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
    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.
  • Strawder v. Zapata Haynie Corp. 649 So. 2d 554 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Watterson v. Mallard Bay Drilling, Inc. 649 So. 2d 431 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
    1979); Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Phelps v. White 645 So. 2d 698 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
    When a jury has erred as a matter of law as opposed to an abuse of discretion, the appellate court must assess the amount of damages unrestricted by Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., since it is in effect making an initial damage award.
  • Alphonse v. Omni Hotels Management Corp. 643 So. 2d 836 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
  • Rudd v. Atlas Processing Refinery 644 So. 2d 402 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Caldwell v. Smith 641 So. 2d 1011 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • McCann v. ABC Ins. Co. 640 So. 2d 865 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
    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.
  • Alonzo v. Silverman & Marks Plumbing Co. 640 So. 2d 876 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
    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.
  • DeRouen v. Audirsch 639 So. 2d 476 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
    art. 2324.1; Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., Burke v. Safeway Stores, Inc., supra at 190.
  • Orillion v. Carter 639 So. 2d 461 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
    1991); Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Chambers v. Graybiel 639 So. 2d 361 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
  • Williams v. General Motors Corp. 639 So. 2d 275 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.