Cited by

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

1757 citing documents.

Forest v. State ex rel. Louisiana Department of Transportation & Development 483 So. 2d 1313 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
Wolfshohl v. Boudreaux 482 So. 2d 954 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
Ballew v. Southland Corp. 482 So. 2d 890 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
Thus, the ordinary quantum review standard announced in Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., is the appropriate standard and that under this standard the jury did not abuse its discretion in awarding the plaintiff $40,000.
Criticized Drueding v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. 482 So. 2d 83 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
1979); Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
Benoit v. Terrebonne Parish School Board 482 So. 2d 721 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., Black v. Ebasco Services, Inc., (La.App.
Miller v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 481 So. 2d 1055 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Stringer v. State ex rel. Department of Highways 481 So. 2d 720 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
“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 allowed that court.” Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., at 335.
Booty v. Kentwood Manor Nursing Home, Inc. 483 So. 2d 634 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., Black v. Ebasco Services, Inc., (La.App.
Hull v. Schwegmann Bros. Giant Supermarkets, Inc. 480 So. 2d 1069 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
(5th Cir.La.App.1985); Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
Bennett v. Bardwell 480 So. 2d 349 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
In this regard Bennett relies heavily on the pronouncement in Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., which emphasizes the distinction between loss of earning capacity and ability on the one hand and loss of income on the other hand.
Broussard v. Peltier 479 So. 2d 679 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
Pringle v. Williamson Chevrolet, Buick & Pontiac, Inc. 480 So. 2d 929 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.App.
King v. National Tea Co. 479 So. 2d 383 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Plaintiff argues that the abuse of the “much discretion” rule enunciated in Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., should not be the test in this review since the trial court erred in its factual conclusions and that the “manifest error” should be applicable.
Bourgeois v. Jones 481 So. 2d 145 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
As stated by our Supreme Court in Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., : "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 ...
Farlow v. Roddy 478 So. 2d 953 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
Franklin v. Oilfield Heavy Haulers 478 So. 2d 549 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
construing the "much discretion" given to the judge or jury by LSA-C.C.
Browning v. Commercial Union Ins. Co. 476 So. 2d 559 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
Mouton v. Dominique 476 So. 2d 1095 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
Davis v. Allstate Insurance Co. 476 So. 2d 1111 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
enunciated the standard for appellate review of quantum issues: “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.
Baillio v. McCarty 477 So. 2d 806 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Anthony v. Hospital Service Dist. No. 1 477 So. 2d 1180 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
Burgess v. City of Baton Rouge 477 So. 2d 143 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
Wattik v. Lewis Grocer Co. 476 So. 2d 444 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.
Finley v. North Assur. Co. of America 476 So. 2d 837 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
*850 When we increase or decrease damages awarded by a trial court we do so in accord with the directions of Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
Rodriguez v. Traylor 479 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
With respect to Mrs. Rodriguez’s claim we believe an award of $150,000.00 in general damages is more appropriate and meets the guidelines of Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
Klein v. Himbert 474 So. 2d 513 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
Mushatt v. Barouise 474 So. 2d 511 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
the record must *513 clearly reveal that the trier of fact abused its discretion in making its award.” Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
Lee v. Gaffney Const. Co. 474 So. 2d 994 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
2 Cir. 1980), and the implication of Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.
Rose v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc. 474 So. 2d 26 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
*28 (La.1979), and Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., oblige a reviewing court to affirm the amount of a general damage award unless it finds an abuse of discretion.
Tischler v. City of Alexandria 471 So. 2d 1099 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
Rawls v. Morris 470 So. 2d 531 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Core v. Winn-Dixie of Louisiana, Inc. 471 So. 2d 240 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Perniciaro v. Brinch, supra ; Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
Delaney v. Empire Insurance Co. 469 So. 2d 1173 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.App.
Burleigh v. State Farm Ins. 469 So. 2d 270 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., and Emerson v. Empire Fire & Marine Insurance Company
Moity v. Castille 469 So. 2d 503 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
quoting from Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., : "[b]efore 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.
Champagne v. Lee 470 So. 2d 378 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
Attaldo v. Schwegmann Giant Supermarkets, Inc. 469 So. 2d 1132 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
Perkins v. Certa 469 So. 2d 359 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
1978), and Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., we affirm.
Arcemont v. Voisin 468 So. 2d 785 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
The Supreme Court emphasized in Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., 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" and stated that: "...
Mendez v. American Fire & Indemnity Co. 468 So. 2d 1272 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
and Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
Pierron v. Lirette 468 So. 2d 1305 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Co., Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
Rose v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 468 So. 2d 833 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.
Freeman v. Harold Dickey Transport, Inc. 467 So. 2d 194 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
2d Cir.1982); Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
Bordelon v. Southern La. Health Care Corp. 467 So. 2d 167 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
Reck, supra; Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
Richardson v. Continental Ins. Co. 468 So. 2d 675 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
3rd Cir.1976), reversed as to quantum, (La.
Rosemond v. Diggs 468 So. 2d 652 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
Bickham v. Airlie Corp. 468 So. 2d 658 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
Cariere v. State Farm Ins. Co. 467 So. 2d 867 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
Taylor v. CHARITY HOSP. OF LOUISIANA 466 So. 2d 736 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
McQuarters v. Zegar 466 So. 2d 579 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., and cases cited therein.