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.

  • Brown v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. 385 So. 2d 572 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    See Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc. (La.
  • Choate v. Greene 386 So. 2d 948 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    In Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., the 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 *950 abused its discretion in making its award.” (Emphasis ours) This standard of review was also discussed in Reck v. Ste
  • Johnson v. Coca Cola Bottling Co., Inc. 386 So. 2d 993 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
    In Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., the 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."
  • Perniciaro v. Brinch 384 So. 2d 392 La. 1980
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • McGowan v. Farris 384 So. 2d 544 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    239 , ; Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., La., ; Reck v. Stevens, La., .
  • Castro v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. 384 So. 2d 587 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    4th Cir., 1976); Coco *589 v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Meyers v. Basso 381 So. 2d 843 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Hebert v. Diamond M Co. 385 So. 2d 410 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    In accordance with the directions of our Supreme Court in Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.
  • Lawrence v. Hartsuck 383 So. 2d 453 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    239 , (1963); Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Taylor v. Zetz 7 Up Bottling Co. 384 So. 2d 811 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Johnson v. Franks 383 So. 2d 117 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    Civil Code Article 1934 provides that, in the assessment of general damages, “much discretion must be left to the judge or jury In Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., the Supreme Court 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.”
  • Perry v. Domingue 383 So. 2d 130 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    Civil Code Art. 1934 provides that, in the assessment of general damages, “much discretion must be left to the judge or jury In Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., the court 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.” (Emphasis supplied) The principles announced in Coco were reaffirmed in Reck v. Stev
  • Brewer v. Loewer 383 So. 2d 1325 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (1976).
  • Sikes v. McLean Trucking Co. 383 So. 2d 111 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Mid-State Homes, Inc. v. Lartigue 383 So. 2d 99 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.
  • Holubar v. State 385 So. 2d 362 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Hanzy v. Sam 385 So. 2d 355 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.
  • Followed Launey v. Thomas 379 So. 2d 27 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
    In determining whether the "much discretion" of the trial court in awarding damages under La.Civil Code Art. 1934(3) has or *32 has not been abused in this case, we follow the methodology of appellate review of awards for general damages as explained in Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.
  • Guidry v. Davis 382 So. 2d 250 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Veuleman v. Sims 382 So. 2d 245 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Babineaux v. Firemen's Insurance Co. of Newark 381 So. 2d 904 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    Art. 1934; Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Jackson v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co. 382 So. 2d 223 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
    Our increase in the amount of the award is not violative of the principles set forth in Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., since the increase is made to compensate plaintiff for damages at first not believed to be causally related to the accident, not to correct a trial court's abuse of discretion in making an award.
  • Young v. Wayde 383 So. 2d 1283 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.
  • Walters v. Thrasher 381 So. 2d 557 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    In Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., the court pointed out that before an appellate court can change an award made by the trial judge the record must clearly reveal that the trier of fact abused his discretion in making the award.
  • Searcy v. Porter 381 So. 2d 540 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1980
    Reck and Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., explained that before a reviewing court can change an award made by the trial court, the record must clearly reveal that the trier of fact abused its discretion in making the award.
  • Miller v. Lambert 380 So. 2d 695 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
    Considering the guidelines for appellate review of damage awards, as enunciated in Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., we find the damages were neither inadequate nor excessive.
  • Followed Dice v. Allstate Insurance Co. 380 So. 2d 692 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    In determining the amount of these awards, we follow the guidelines of Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., : “[Bjefore a Court of Appeal can disturb an award made by a trial court .
  • Jolivette v. Safeco Ins. Co. 379 So. 2d 1213 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
    Adhering to the guidelines for reviewing courts set forth in Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., we find that under the facts and circumstances of this case the award of $1150.00 for general damages was inadequate and constituted an abuse of the trial judge's "much discretion".
  • Danos v. St. Pierre 383 So. 2d 1019 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    art. 1934(3); Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.
  • Wexler v. Occhipinti 378 So. 2d 1073 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1979
    Only after such determination of abuse has been reached, is a resort to prior awards appropriate under Coco [ v. Winston Industries Inc., ] for purposes of then determining what would be an appropriate award for the present case.
  • McDonald v. American Fire & Indemnity Ins. 378 So. 2d 1013 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Worsham v. Hanover Insurance Co. 378 So. 2d 1060 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., elaborated on the procedure to be used by the appellate courts.
  • Rogers v. Weiser Detectives & Security Services, Inc. 378 So. 2d 502 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    1976, , in its appellate quantum review hints, which we respectfully suggest have not revealed to us a clear path to follow because there is no clear path.
  • Skinner v. Nightingale 377 So. 2d 1348 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Recherche, Inc. v. Jewelry Jungle, Inc. 377 So. 2d 1329 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.
  • Brummerloh v. Firemen's Ins. Co. of Newark 377 So. 2d 1301 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
    and Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Placide v. Jay 378 So. 2d 473 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., ” our Supreme Court states: In the event the appellate court finds from the record an abuse of discretion, the award may be disturbed by
  • Craig v. Southeastern Fidelity Ins. Co. 377 So. 2d 1271 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Cardwell v. Jefferson Rentals Division 379 So. 2d 255 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1979
    In our initial opinion, at , we felt we took the view that we were mandated by Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., to affirm but the Supreme Court granted writs and remanded the case to us. We then reduced these awards to $300 each at , and the Supreme Court subsequently refused writs at
  • Cheatham v. City of New Orleans 378 So. 2d 369 La. 1979
    In interpreting Article 1934(3) this Court held in Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.
  • Elmer v. M. Levy Co. of ShrevePort 377 So. 2d 453 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Villetto v. Weilbaecher 377 So. 2d 132 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1979
  • Davis v. New Orleans Public Belt RR 375 So. 2d 395 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1979
    In making this determination we are cognizant of the jurisprudential restrictions placed upon our constitutional mandate to review cases on both law and fact, exemplified in the case of Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., and the cases discussed therein.
  • Sullivan v. Zetz 7-Up Bottling Co. 376 So. 2d 614 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Stewart v. Schmieder 376 So. 2d 1046 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    The court quoted at length from the recent Supreme Court case of Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., relative to the standards of review to be applied in quantum cases.
  • Holden v. Straughn 376 So. 2d 1292 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1979
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Menard v. Prejean 374 So. 2d 1275 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Philippe v. Browning Arms Co. 375 So. 2d 151 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1979
  • Hardie v. Pylant 375 So. 2d 189 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1979
    We elaborated on the methodology of appellate review of awards for general damages in Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Harrison v. State, Dept. of Highways 375 So. 2d 169 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1979
    An award of this amount would not have been an abuse of discretion and would have been approved by this court under the guidelines of Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.