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.

  • Guillory v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc. 448 So. 2d 1281 La. 1984
    art. 1934(3); Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Jenkins v. Schwegmann's Bros. Giant Super Markets, Inc. 445 So. 2d 1326 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    The Reck court further explained, citing Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., that even after finding an abuse of discretion, the appellate court could reduce or increase the award only to bring it to the highest or lowest extreme that would have come within the trial court’s wide range of discretion.
  • Ciuffi v. Wilson 445 So. 2d 1320 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    much discretion must be left to the judge or jury_” In Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., at 335 (La.1976), our Supreme Court stated, “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.
  • Roque v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 445 So. 2d 506 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    We may not substitute our subjective belief as to the appropriate damages due; rather the finding below is to be honored in the absence of a “clear abuse of discretion.” Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.App.
  • Benson v. Seagraves 445 So. 2d 187 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
    In elaborating on the methodology of appellate review of awards for general damages the Louisiana Supreme Court in Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., stated that: "...
  • Burnham v. Frey-Shoemaker-Colbert-Brodnax 445 So. 2d 477 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., Black v. Ebasco Services, Inc., (La.App.
  • Davila v. Southern Pacific Transp. Co. 444 So. 2d 1293 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1984
    1974); Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Richoux v. Hebert 449 So. 2d 491 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Meche v. Gulf States Utilities Co. 444 So. 2d 137 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
    $900,000.00 DAMAGES DUE THE REMAINING FIVE CHILDREN (Loss of Father) Defendant argues that pursuant to Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., the appellate court should raise the "low award to the lowest point of the damage range, which is appropriate when a damage award must be increased."
  • Farnsworth v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. 442 So. 2d 1340 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.
  • Cummings v. Nixon 442 So. 2d 1291 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    Art. 1934(3) provides that in the assessment of general damages, “much discretion must be left to the judge or jury * * *.” In elaborating on the methodology of appellate review of awards for general damages the Louisiana Supreme Court in Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., stated that: “...
  • Cooley v. Allstate Ins. Co. 443 So. 2d 739 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
    Art. 1813, we will review the verdict rendered by the jury under the manifest error standards set forth in Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Poynor v. Cure 443 So. 2d 1151 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1983
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Thibodaux v. Acme Truck Lines, Inc. 443 So. 2d 716 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1983
    Civil Code art. 1934(3); -501 (La.1979)
  • Allen v. Keeney 442 So. 2d 1171 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Broome v. Gauthier 443 So. 2d 1127 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.
  • Perrodin v. Zander 441 So. 2d 12 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Arena v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc. 441 So. 2d 73 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    See, Miller v. Thomas, 258 La.
  • Dawson v. James H. Stuart and Deaton, Inc. 437 So. 2d 974 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Hart v. Allstate Ins. Co. 437 So. 2d 823 La. 1983
    La.Civ.Code art. 1934(3); Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.
  • Langston v. Marsalis 436 So. 2d 735 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • Spears v. Aguilar 436 So. 2d 672 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
    The Louisiana Supreme Court, in Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., declared: "We do re-emphasize, 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 the award.
  • Larson v. Huskey 440 So. 2d 769 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
    We apply the standard enunciated in Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., p. 335 (La.1976): *775 "that before a Court of Appeal can disturb an award made by a trial court that record must clearly reveal that the trier of fact abused its discretion in making its award.
  • Davenport v. Nixon 434 So. 2d 1203 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Curry on Behalf of Curry v. Allstate Ins. Co. 435 So. 2d 1030 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
    In assessing general damages where the jury has erroneously awarded none, this court and the Third Circuit have uniformly held that the appellate court [under the guidelines of Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., ] must award the lowest amount that the jury reasonably could have determined in its discretion.
  • Rivet v. State, Through Dept. of Transp. 434 So. 2d 436 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
    Code Art. 1934(3); Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Pitre v. Aetna Life and Cas. Co. 434 So. 2d 191 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Holmes v. Christopher 435 So. 2d 1022 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
    Our review of the record in light of the guidelines set out by the Supreme Court in Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., shows us that the award made by the trial court was not so low as to warrant an increase.
  • Jacobs v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. 432 So. 2d 843 La. 1983
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Jacobs v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. 432 So. 2d 843 La. 1983
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Johnson v. Dufrene 433 So. 2d 1109 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., La.Civil Code Art. 1934(3).
  • Smith v. Jones 432 So. 2d 307 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    The standard of appellate review in cases such as the present was set forth in Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., as follows: “.
  • Barker v. Loxco, Inc. 432 So. 2d 975 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.
  • Sciortino v. Alfano 435 So. 2d 1010 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1983
    See Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Nolan v. Ochello 433 So. 2d 1100 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Duvernay v. ST. THROUGH DEPT. OF PUBLIC SAFETY 433 So. 2d 254 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    1979); Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Williams v. McNeil 432 So. 2d 950 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.
  • Brock v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. 433 So. 2d 1083 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Clayton v. Clayton 431 So. 2d 1082 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
  • Taylor v. State 431 So. 2d 876 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Hart v. Allstate Ins. Co. 426 So. 2d 711 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • Johnson v. Carter 430 So. 2d 1163 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Melrose v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. 430 So. 2d 230 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    In following the guidelines set out by the Supreme Court in Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., we conclude that the record clearly demonstrates that the jury abused its discretion in making its award, and we award only to the highest point which we believe is reasonably within the discretion of the trier of fact.
  • Mathews v. Hanover Ins. Co. 428 So. 2d 1273 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Mose v. Brewer 428 So. 2d 1212 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Camatsos v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. 428 So. 2d 1320 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • McGee v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. 428 So. 2d 1287 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
    3rd Cir.1976), writ granted, quantum judgment set aside
  • Cullivan v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 428 So. 2d 1231 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
    Only after such determination of abuse has been reached, is a resort to prior awards appropriate under Coco [ v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.
  • Samanie v. Bourg 434 So. 2d 149 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1983
    239 , (1963); Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.
  • Cazes v. Raisinger 430 So. 2d 104 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1983
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., rehearing denied January 21, 1977.