DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

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.

  • Hebert v. Schwegmann Bros. Giant Supermarkets, Inc. 396 So. 2d 479 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    The standard of review of awards for general damages was established by the Supreme Court of Louisiana in Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.
  • Steib v. Schwegmann Bros. Giant Supermarkets, Inc. 396 So. 2d 464 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., established the standard for appellate review of awards for general damages when it stated, at 335: "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.
  • Mizell v. State, Through La. Dept. of Hwys. 398 So. 2d 1136 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Anderson v. Safeco Insurance 396 So. 2d 322 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    CC Art. 1934(3); Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.
  • Ewing v. Sanson 394 So. 2d 849 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.
  • Brown v. Grigsby 394 So. 2d 847 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
    Under the circumstances, we are guided by the principles of Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Ferro v. Green 394 So. 2d 824 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    The standard of review for quantum was enunciated by the Supreme Court in Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., wherein it stated (at 334): “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, (citations omitted) Only after making the finding that the record supports t
  • Ricker v. Thompson 394 So. 2d 831 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    The standard of review for quantum was enunciated by the Supreme Court in Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.
  • Dofflemyer v. Gilley 395 So. 2d 403 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Wallis v. Lasyone 395 So. 2d 413 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Frazier v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 394 So. 2d 692 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    Art. 1934(3); Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Lute v. City of Lake Charles 394 So. 2d 736 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
    Art. 1934(3); (1979); Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (1976).
  • Godwin v. Government Employees Ins. Co. 394 So. 2d 751 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Triplett v. Amiss 395 So. 2d 374 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Emerson v. Empire Fire & Marine Ins. Co. 393 So. 2d 691 La. 1981
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.
  • Weissbohn v. Gulf Insurance Co. 392 So. 2d 752 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    art. 1934(3); Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., emphasize that before an appellate court can change a general damage award made by a trial court the record must clearly reveal that the trier of fact abused its discretion in making the award.
  • Boustany v. Fluid Dynamics, Inc. 392 So. 2d 750 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Derouen v. Dept. of Transp. & Development 392 So. 2d 765 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
    art. 1934(3); Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Sibley v. Menard 398 So. 2d 590 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.
  • LaGraize v. Bickham 391 So. 2d 1185 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Jack v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co. 392 So. 2d 499 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
  • Litton v. Home Indemnity Co. 391 So. 2d 541 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    and from doctor in Shreveport (5 trips x 120 miles, 700 miles x $.20) 140.00 $4,806.55 For general damages, pain, suffering (past, present, future), serious personality changes resulting from brain damage sixty thousand ($60,000.00) dollars.” *544 Civil Code Art. 1934 provides that, in the assessment of general damages, “much discretion must be left to the or In Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., the court stated: “We do re-emphasize, however, that before a Court of Appeal can disturb an award ma
  • Chaney v. Our Lady of Fatima Cath. Church 391 So. 2d 501 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
    Reck v. Stephens, supra; Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Benedic v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. 389 So. 2d 871 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    Turning now to the question of quantum, : “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 .
  • Hebert v. Lefty's Moving Service 389 So. 2d 855 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
  • Brown v. State 392 So. 2d 113 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
  • Olinde v. State 391 So. 2d 1243 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.
  • Erdey v. Steib 392 So. 2d 131 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., La.App., (1976).
  • Hukill v. US Fidelity and Guaranty Co. 386 So. 2d 172 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
    See also Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.
  • Courville v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 386 So. 2d 176 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
    See Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Andry v. CUMIS INS. SOC., INC. 387 So. 2d 1374 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
    On the question of quantum, however, we find that the jury clearly abused its discretion under Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Chipman v. Insurance Co. of North America 389 So. 2d 432 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1980
    In deference to the trial court's discretion and following the implication of Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.
  • Suhor v. Gusse 388 So. 2d 755 La. 1980
    On original hearing, the court of appeal reviewed the damage award under the "much discretion" standard of Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.
  • Stuart v. Gereaux 388 So. 2d 468 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    Under the guidelines of Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.
  • Hawthorne v. Southeastern Fidelity Ins. Co. 387 So. 2d 26 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
    Article 1934(3); Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., and, convince us that the award is clearly not excessive.
  • Shipp v. City of Alexandria 392 So. 2d 1078 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
    in order to alter the court's award, we must find a clear abuse of the trier of fact's much discretion under C.C.
  • Hebert v. Ordoyne 388 So. 2d 407 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Jordan v. Lloyd 387 So. 2d 1321 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Fontenot v. American Fidelity Fire Ins. Co. 386 So. 2d 165 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
    239 , (1963) and Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.
  • Bolton v. MFA Mutual Insurance 386 So. 2d 144 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    .” In Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., 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.” (citations omitted) The principles expressed in Coco were recently reaffirmed
  • Thibodeaux v. Hulin Marble & Granite Works, Inc. 386 So. 2d 136 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    In Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., the 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.
  • Ashworth v. Smith 386 So. 2d 1016 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    and Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Cobb v. Insured Lloyds 387 So. 2d 13 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Fontenot v. Hanover Ins. Co. 385 So. 2d 238 La. 1980
    Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc.
  • Hunter v. OFFICE OF HEALTH SERVICES, ETC. 385 So. 2d 928 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1980
    In interpreting Article 1934(3) this Court held in Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., : "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....
  • Lucas v. Deville 385 So. 2d 804 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
    3rd Cir. 1976), reversed on other grounds
  • Lomas & Nettleton Co. v. Moore 385 So. 2d 881 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.
  • Richard v. Southwest Louisiana Hospital Ass'n 383 So. 2d 83 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
    *90 Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Pisciotta v. Allstate Ins. Co. 385 So. 2d 1176 La. 1980
    1973); Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Untereiner v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. 385 So. 2d 587 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    (1979); Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (1976).