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.

  • Redford v. Boutte 638 So. 2d 702 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Dupre v. Exxon Pipeline Co. 638 So. 2d 1118 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., Spillers v. Montgomery Ward & Co.
  • Makin v. Continental Insurance Co. 638 So. 2d 460 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., Biotun [Bitoun] v. Land [Landry], Spillers v. Montgomery Ward & Co.
  • Breaux v. Larkin 637 So. 2d 1313 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
  • Myers v. Burger King Corp. 638 So. 2d 369 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.
  • White v. Longanecker 637 So. 2d 1213 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., (La.App.
  • Smith v. LOUISIANA HEALTH & HUMAN RES. 637 So. 2d 1177 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.
  • Sattler v. Hammond 640 So. 2d 570 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.
  • Reid v. State Through DOTD 637 So. 2d 618 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
  • Stapleton v. Great Lakes Chemical Corp. 639 So. 2d 300 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Orgeron v. Prescott 636 So. 2d 1033 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1994
    If the answer is in the negative, then the trial court's damage award based on its independent assessment of the damages is reviewed on appeal under the constraints of Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.
  • Followed Ard v. East Jefferson General Hosp. 636 So. 2d 1042 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1994
    We follow the guideline enunciated in Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., and raise Lorena Ard's general damage award from $50,000.00 to $150,000.00 and Sheila Bond's general damage award from $10,000.00 to $50,000.00.
  • Breaux v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 635 So. 2d 667 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., Browning v. Commercial Union Ins.
  • Oswalt v. STATE, DOTD 640 So. 2d 388 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
    We note that the trial court did not categorize its general damage award into past and future pain and suffering; thus, we are not able to simply delete any amounts for future pain and suffering, and then consider the Estate's contention that the remainder of the general damage award was abusively low under Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., and its progeny.
  • Harig v. State, Bd. of Elementary & Secondary Educ. 635 So. 2d 485 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
  • Langlinais v. Figueroa 636 So. 2d 983 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Longman v. Allstate Ins. Co. 635 So. 2d 343 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.
  • Simpson v. State Through DOTD 636 So. 2d 608 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
    through Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., have been fraught with uncertainty.
  • Russell ex rel. Wunstell v. Kossover 634 So. 2d 72 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.
  • Clement v. Griffin 634 So. 2d 412 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Hayes v. Richard 634 So. 2d 1384 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Atkinson v. Celotex Corp. 633 So. 2d 383 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
    The Youn court, citing Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., 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.
  • Nugent v. Continental Cas. Co. 634 So. 2d 406 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.
  • Sons v. Delaune 634 So. 2d 1212 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Stewart v. Select Ins. Co. 631 So. 2d 599 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Powell v. Automotive Cas. Ins. Co. 631 So. 2d 581 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Owens v. Anderson 631 So. 2d 1313 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
    See: Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.
  • Rick v. STATE, DOTD 630 So. 2d 1271 La. 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.
  • Chenniliaro v. Kaufman & Broad Home Sys. 636 So. 2d 246 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
    On the other hand, if the answer is in the negative, then the trial judge 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.], supra [ ].
  • Gaston v. G & D Marine Services, Inc. 631 So. 2d 547 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.App.
  • Guilfore v. DH Holmes Co., Ltd. 631 So. 2d 491 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., Stobart v. *503 State, (La.
  • Hidalgo v. Old Hickory Ins. Co. 630 So. 2d 252 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1994
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., Walls v. Henley, supra .
  • Griffin v. Manning 633 So. 2d 361 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
    On the other hand, if the answer is in the negative, then the trial judge 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., ] [(La.1976)], supra.
  • Sinor v. National Cas. Co. 633 So. 2d 720 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
    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.
  • Foret v. Terrebonne Towing Co., Inc. 632 So. 2d 344 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
    239 , (1963) through Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., and through Reck [v. Stevens, ] [(La.1979)] 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.
  • Pino v. Gauthier 633 So. 2d 638 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
    1st Cir.1989): The Coco [ v. Winston Industries, Inc., ] standard of review does not apply to a trial court's review of a jury's award.
  • Dent v. Perkins 629 So. 2d 1354 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.
  • Guy v. ABC Insurance Co. 629 So. 2d 1350 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Hackman v. Southern Farm Bureau Ins. Co. 629 So. 2d 531 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1993
  • Futrell v. Scott Truck and Tractor Co. 629 So. 2d 449 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.
  • Hoback v. KMart Corp. 628 So. 2d 1258 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
    See Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., Jaffarzad v. Jones Truck Lines, Inc., (La.App.
  • Raney v. Walter O. Moss Regional Hosp. 629 So. 2d 485 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
    In addressing Moss Regional Hospital's and the plaintiffs' assertions of error as to the trial judge's award of damages, the Louisiana Supreme Court in Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., states the applicable law as: "[B]efore a court of appeal can disturb an award made by a trial court ...
  • Cantrelle v. KIVA CONST. & ENGINEERING 630 So. 2d 265 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Laing v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. 628 So. 2d 196 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
  • Brinson v. Morgan City Housing Authority 629 So. 2d 1214 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Daigle v. Johnson 633 So. 2d 268 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
    92-C-3017; American Motorist Insurance Company v. American Rent-All, Inc., Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Ly v. State Through Dept. of Public Safety and Corrections 633 So. 2d 197 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Ambrose v. New Orleans Police Dept. 627 So. 2d 233 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.App.
  • Hill v. Sampson 628 So. 2d 81 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
    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.
  • Sandidge v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation & Development 626 So. 2d 560 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., Spillers v. Montgomery Ward & Co.