Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., 341 So. 2d 332.

1757 citing documents.

Ford v. Sears 552 So. 2d 497 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Only after a determination of abuse has been made, for the purpose of determining what would be an appropriate award for the present case.
State v. Fontenot 550 So. 2d 179 La. 1989
1005 , 123 So.655 (1929); (La.
Day v. South Line Equipment Co. 551 So. 2d 774 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Reck v. Stevens, supra ; Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
Finwall v. Union Oil Co. of California 551 So. 2d 673 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
Meche v. Thibodeaux 550 So. 2d 346 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
Fox v. OUR LADY OF LOURDES REGIONAL MED. CTR. 550 So. 2d 379 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
When increasing or decreasing a damage award, a (La.
Prados v. Reynaud 550 So. 2d 385 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
Malmay v. Sentry Ins. Co. 550 So. 2d 366 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
Pitts v. Bailes 551 So. 2d 1363 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
Co., Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.
Carroll v. St. Paul Ins. Co. 550 So. 2d 787 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.App.
McCray v. Abraham 550 So. 2d 244 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
Reck v. Stevens, supra ; Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., Gullo v. Sewerage & Water Board of New Orleans, (La.App.
Tesvich v. 3-A's Towing Co. 547 So. 2d 1106 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
See Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
Doucet v. B & R Petroleum Services, Inc. 546 So. 2d 626 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Furthermore, in Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., the Supreme Court has stated that before an appellate court can disturb a quantum award, the record must *631 clearly reveal that the trier of fact abused its much discretion in making the award.
Montgomery v. Opelousas General Hosp. 546 So. 2d 621 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.
Stallion v. Morris 546 So. 2d 563 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
Berthold v. State Farm Insurance Companies 545 So. 2d 688 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
South Cent. Bell Tel. Co. v. American Holding Corp. 548 So. 2d 339 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Crupe v. Huval Bakery, Inc. 544 So. 2d 119 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
Humphries v. LA. DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS, DIV. OF TRANSP. 545 So. 2d 610 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
Jones v. Northbrook Ins. Co. 544 So. 2d 742 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
Defendant also asserts that, should this court conclude that the trial court properly granted a judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the issue of damages, the trial court was bound by the standard for appellate review set out in Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., in making an award of general damages.
Combs v. Hartford Ins. Co. 544 So. 2d 583 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
Bourne v. Seventh Ward General Hosp. 546 So. 2d 197 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.
Jones v. Sampey Bros. General Const., Ltd. 544 So. 2d 1192 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
Rickerson v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. 543 So. 2d 519 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
The reasons for judgment given by the trial judge do not clearly establish whether he was attempting to render a de novo finding or whether he was reviewing the jury's general damage award using the appellate standard of review set forth in Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
Fuqua v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. 542 So. 2d 1129 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
Charles v. Arceneaux Ford, Inc. 542 So. 2d 846 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., Aucoin v. Hartford Acc.
Landy on Behalf of Landy v. Smith 542 So. 2d 731 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
Callender v. Delchamps, Inc. 542 So. 2d 140 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
La.Civ.Code art. 2324.1; Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
Henry v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. 542 So. 2d 102 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
Bridevaux v. Marchand 543 So. 2d 930 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
Reese v. Winn-Dixie of Louisiana, Inc. 542 So. 2d 68 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
[1] Under the particular circumstances present in this case, we do not consider that our appellate review is subject to the constraints applicable in the ordinary review of quantum awards as set forth in Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., and Reck v. Stevens
Weber v. Buccola-McKenzie, Inc. 541 So. 2d 315 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
West v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 539 So. 2d 1258 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
Surgi v. Otis Elevator Co. 541 So. 2d 297 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
She states that under Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., the lowest figure to which the award should be raised would include $50,000 for pain and suffering, $40,678 for lost wages, and $25,014.91 for medical expenses.
Alexander v. Derouen 540 So. 2d 591 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
2nd Cir.1988); Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
Vidrine v. Keller 541 So. 2d 940 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Since this increase is made to compensate plaintiff for damages not attributable to the accident in the judgment, our award is res novo and we aré not limited to the principles of Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., relative to the appellate court’s ability to increase or decrease damage awards when an abuse of discretion is found.
Bergeron v. K-Mart Corp. 540 So. 2d 406 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Only after such determination of abuse has been reached, is a resort to prior awards appropriate under Coco [ v. Winston *410 Industries, Inc., (La.
Snell v. United Parcel Services, Inc. 543 So. 2d 52 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
No. 1, Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
Vaccaro v. Sports & Imports, Inc. 539 So. 2d 989 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
citing Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
Harris v. Doucette 539 So. 2d 997 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
The standard of appellate review of general damages was enumerated in Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
Mitchell v. Fire and Cas. Ins. Co. of Connecticut 540 So. 2d 352 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
Smith v. Orkin Exterminating Co. 540 So. 2d 363 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
Goldan v. Allstate Insurance Co. 543 So. 2d 496 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
Smith v. Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc. 540 So. 2d 363 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
Lee v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co. 540 So. 2d 1083 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., Miller v. Thomas, 258 La.
Dowe v. Grady 540 So. 2d 1040 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
Cook v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 540 So. 2d 1017 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., Garrison v. State, Through Dept. of Highways, (La.App.
Barzare v. Transit Casualty Co. 539 So. 2d 708 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., Browning v. Commercial Union Ins.
Defils v. Protective Casualty Insurance Co. 539 So. 2d 724 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
Williams v. Exxon Corp. 541 So. 2d 910 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.