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.

  • Richard v. Trahan 417 So. 2d 103 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    The standard of appellate review for such trial court determinations was set forth in Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.
  • Williams v. Winn Dixie Louisiana, Inc. 418 So. 2d 13 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    2d Cir. 1977); Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Guidry v. State, Department of Transportation & Development 416 So. 2d 595 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1982
    In interpreting Article 1934(3) our Supreme Court has held in Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., La., (1976), at page 335: “ * * * [Bjefore 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.
  • Merrell v. State, Through Dept. of Transp. 415 So. 2d 660 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
    The standard of appellate review for such trial court determinations was set forth in Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., : "We do reemphazise, 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."
  • Stewart v. Hanover Ins. Co. 416 So. 2d 286 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Alleman v. State, Dept. of Highways 416 So. 2d 272 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
    The Supreme Court, in Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.
  • Durrett v. State 416 So. 2d 562 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    Under the guidelines of Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., rehearing denied 1977, as a reviewing court we can only lower the award to the highest figure the trial court could have granted without abusing its discretion.
  • Palermo v. Allstate Ins. Co. 415 So. 2d 437 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    Hence, and Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., we reduce the award to plaintiffs Sardo and Mary Palermo, as beneficiaries of the Estate of Glinda Steib, to the sum of $15,000 for the loss of each child, or a total of $30,000.
  • Broussard v. Foremost Insurance 415 So. 2d 420 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    Article 1934 of our Civil Code allows the trier of fact much discretion in fixing a money amount in cases of this sort and we can find no reason to say that a $25,000.00 award in this case is an abuse of that discretion; Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., , (La.1976).
  • Roe v. Somerson 419 So. 2d 1249 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Bethea v. La. Dept. of Transp. & Development 415 So. 2d 535 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Rodrigue v. Matherne 416 So. 2d 577 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Minton v. Saint Bernard Parish School Board 416 So. 2d 167 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    set forth explicit guidelines to be used by appellate courts in determining whether the trial judge abused the great discretion allowed him.
  • Wright v. Ouachita Coca-Cola Bottling Co. 415 So. 2d 309 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Alphonso v. CHARITY HOSP. OF LOUISIANA, ETC. 413 So. 2d 982 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
    The Louisiana Supreme Court in Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., stated: 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 its award.
  • Prestridge v. COMMERCIAL UNION ASSUR. COS. 413 So. 2d 959 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Thomas v. State Farm Insurance 413 So. 2d 293 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., LSA-C.C.
  • Cage v. Shainberg's Stores of La. 413 So. 2d 564 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.App.
  • Tucker v. Howes 413 So. 2d 585 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.App.
  • Bullard v. STATE, DEPT. OF TRANSP., ETC. 413 So. 2d 606 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    1979), and Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., we find that the trial court's awards in the instant case are of such a magnitude and are so substantially higher than in other similar cases (being twice as high as the highest award in the cited cases) as to be an abuse of discretion.
  • Coignet v. Deubert 413 So. 2d 253 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Butler v. Pardue 415 So. 2d 249 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Faulk v. Cagle Supply, Inc. 412 So. 2d 1020 La. 1982
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., Mil ler v. Thomas, 258 La.
  • Smith v. Lumbermen's Mut. Cas. Co. 414 So. 2d 1281 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
    art. 1934(3); Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Chesson v. American Hardware Mut. Ins. Co. 412 So. 2d 186 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.
  • Faulk v. Schlumberger Well Services 412 So. 2d 162 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
    In making appropriate adjustment we must conform to the rules for appellate review of quantum awards set forth in Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.
  • Dunn v. Redman Homes, Inc. 411 So. 2d 722 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Coco v. Richland General Contractors, Inc. 411 So. 2d 1260 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
    Under the circumstances, we reduce the total award to a total of $30,000.00.
  • Bunkie Funeral Home, Inc. v. McNutt 414 So. 2d 1263 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
    We therefore shall award, under the principles of Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., the lowest amount which could reasonably have been awarded for the damages to Mr. Keys by the trier of fact.
  • Dollacker v. Schimek 411 So. 2d 643 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Brouillette v. Ward 412 So. 2d 138 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    Reck v. Stevens, supra; Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Green v. Farmers Ins. Co. 412 So. 2d 1136 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Smith v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation & Development 412 So. 2d 685 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., Carollo, supra.
  • Unbehagen v. Bollinger Workover, Inc. 411 So. 2d 507 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
  • Black v. Ebasco Services, Inc. 411 So. 2d 1159 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.
  • Smith v. STATE, THROUGH DEPT. OF TRANSP., ETC. 412 So. 2d 685 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., Carollo, supra .
  • Lawrence v. Grant Parish School Bd. 409 So. 2d 1316 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
    The Louisiana Supreme Court, in Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.
  • Kinchen v. Rigamer 411 So. 2d 482 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
  • Martinez v. UNITED STATES FID. & GUARANTY 412 So. 2d 109 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
    But, in this case, we conclude the rule of Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., La., , and similar cases compels us to affirm the general damages award.
  • Johnson v. Doe 410 So. 2d 365 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
    See Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.
  • Jones v. MFA Mut. Ins. Co. 410 So. 2d 1190 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
    The Louisiana Supreme Court, in Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.
  • Noel v. Demouchette 410 So. 2d 1291 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    In order to determine an appropriate award for general damages the appellate court should apply the test of Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., and we quote: “We do re-emphasize, however, that before a Court of Appeal can disturb an award made by a trial court that the record must dearly reveal that the trier of fact abused its discretion in making its award.
  • Bantin v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation & Development 411 So. 2d 65 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    He stated also that in his opinion surgery would improve her appearance and breathing, but that it may not improve her diminished sense of smell, which was occasioned by the accident.” As we examine damage awards, we are guided by the principles enunciated in the case of Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., where the Supreme Court held as follows: “ ‘Unless the record demonstrates that the trial court abused the “much discretion” provided for in fixing damages (C.C.1934), the appellate court should
  • Bantin v. STATE, THROUGH DEPT. OF TRANSP., ETC. 411 So. 2d 65 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
    As we examine damage awards, we are guided by the principles enunciated in the case of Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., where the Supreme Court held as follows: "`Unless the record demonstrates that the trial court abused the "much discretion" provided for in fixing damages (C.C.1934), the appellate court should not disturb the award....
  • Ryals v. Home Ins. Co. 410 So. 2d 827 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
    We recognize that, under Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., "...
  • Castille v. Melancon 410 So. 2d 1224 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
    We note that in Coco [v. Winston Industries, La., ] supra, the Supreme Court stated that a determination as to whether or not an abuse of discretion exists is a `judgment call'."
  • Gonzalez v. Lockette 410 So. 2d 265 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    CoCo v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Franco v. Kar Products, Inc. 409 So. 2d 1238 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
  • Coupel v. McLean 409 So. 2d 685 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Fenetz v. Stine 407 So. 2d 1381 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.App.