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.

  • Manzella v. Jones 374 So. 2d 174 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    See Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., La., .
  • Bennett v. US Fid. & Guar. Co. 373 So. 2d 1362 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Smith v. Travelers Indem. Co. of Rhode Island 374 So. 2d 708 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.
  • Hebert v. Town of Ville Platte 373 So. 2d 229 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    Article 1934; Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Harris v. Bardwell 373 So. 2d 777 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1979
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • LeJeune v. Allstate Ins. Co. 373 So. 2d 212 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
    do not apply, and, therefore, that we are justified in reconsidering the amounts awarded.
  • Polman v. Mohasco Corp. 371 So. 2d 838 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1979
  • Reck v. Stevens 373 So. 2d 498 La. 1979
    We elaborated on the methodology of appellate review of awards for general damages in Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Parker v. Travelers Ins. Co. 369 So. 2d 1120 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    art. 1934(3), to the current rule of Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., which purports to clarify the Gaspard v. LeMaire admonition.
  • Dupree v. Pechinay Saint Gobain Co. 369 So. 2d 1075 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    In Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., the Supreme Court made the definitive statement in regard to appellate review of awards for general damages as follows: "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 ma
  • Monette v. Kilgore 372 So. 2d 728 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    Accordingly, following Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., and its progeny, including the most recent pronouncement by our brothers of the First Circuit in Parker, et al. v. Travelers Insurance Company, et al., Number 12,-430, consolidated with Pellegrin, et al. v. Travelers Insurance Company, et al., Number 12,431, handed down March 5, 1979, (La.App
  • McCreary v. Commercial Union Ins. Co. 372 So. 2d 745 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1979
    we are not persuaded to reduce the award.
  • Case v. Arrow Trucking Co. 372 So. 2d 670 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., Anderson v. Welding Testing Laboratory, Inc.
  • Folse v. Fakouri 371 So. 2d 1120 La. 1979
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Rogers v. Weiser Detectives & Security Services, Inc. 372 So. 2d 610 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    Accordingly, following Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., and its progeny, we limit our modification so as to decrease the award only to an amount that is the maximum which would not have constituted such abuse and, accordingly, set the award at $11,953.75.
  • Vicknair v. Olin 371 So. 2d 360 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
  • DiVincenti v. Desforges 372 So. 2d 606 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1979
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., further stresses that quantum amendments on the appellate level are limited to cases where the trial court abuses the "much discretion" vested in it by C.C.
  • Boudoin v. Schwegmann Bros. Giant Supermarket 371 So. 2d 370 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1979
    See Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.
  • Reinhard v. City of New Orleans 371 So. 2d 286 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1979
  • Meadoux v. Hall 369 So. 2d 240 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1979
    Art. 1934(3); Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., Anderson v. Welding Testing Laboratory, Inc., supra; Fox v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins.
  • Ehrhardt v. Cummins 369 So. 2d 213 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
    In the often quoted case of 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.
  • Dawson v. Piazza 371 So. 2d 283 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    art. *286 1934(3), to the current rule of Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., which purports to clarify the Gaspard v. LeMaire admonition.
  • Angelle v. Griffin 370 So. 2d 160 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    As to the quantum of the award, we find no abuse of the “much discretion”
  • Seals v. Allstate Insurance 370 So. 2d 691 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    Further, we find no abuse of discretion in the amount of the jury’s award, Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., and must affirm.
  • Clofort v. Matmoor, Inc. 370 So. 2d 1305 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1979
    See also, Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Talluto v. Patchen 370 So. 2d 618 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1979
    The current standard for appellate review of damage awards has been clearly set forth in Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., : "[B]efore a Court of Appeal can disturb an award made by a trial court .
  • Hebert v. Missouri PR Co. 366 So. 2d 608 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Digerolamo v. Liberty Mutual Insurance 369 So. 2d 228 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Aymond v. Rose 368 So. 2d 1222 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    Both of these cases came before the Supreme Court decision in Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (1977), and it may very well be that these cases are inconsistent with the Coco case.
  • Young v. Department of Hospitals 365 So. 2d 848 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Trahan v. Ritterman 368 So. 2d 181 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Mays v. American Indem. Co. 365 So. 2d 279 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1979
    We find that the trial judge did not abuse his much discretion provided for by Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.
  • Wilson v. Magee 367 So. 2d 314 La. 1979
    Carollo v. Wilson, supra ; Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., Anderson v. Welding Testing Laboratory, Inc., Revon v. American Guarantee & Liability Ins.
  • LeBlanc v. American Emp. Ins. Co. 364 So. 2d 263 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
    In light of our conclusion that appellant's revocatory action should be sustained, which substantially increases appellees' ability to respond in judgment, does not herein apply.
  • Dupree v. Long 366 So. 2d 1038 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., LeJeune v. Flash Truck Line, Inc., (La.App.
  • Lanclos v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. 366 So. 2d 621 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1978
    These are cataloged in detail by Justice Calogero in Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Rue v. Continental Insurance Co. 366 So. 2d 629 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • South Central Bell Tel. Co. v. Traigle 367 So. 2d 1143 La. 1978
    957, 978 , (1946); see, 21 Loyola L.Rev.
  • Arceneaux v. Domingue 365 So. 2d 1330 La. 1978
    For the proper application of the "much discretion" rule, (La.
  • Reck v. Stevens 365 So. 2d 876 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
    In accordance with Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.App.
  • Stansbury v. Hover 366 So. 2d 918 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.
  • Greene v. Wright 365 So. 2d 551 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
    3rd Cir. 1975) reversed on other grounds while speaking of the term "executive officer" held: "No precise definition or hard and fast rule has ever been laid down.
  • Beal v. New Orleans Pub. Service, Inc. 365 So. 2d 1118 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
    Therefore, the judgment is affirmed.
  • Carter v. Phillips 365 So. 2d 48 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Mora v. American Motors Leasing Corp. 364 So. 2d 1343 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
    They rely on the cases of Schexnayder v. Carpenter, La., , Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., La., , Moss v. Security National Insurance Company, La.App., , and Robinson v. General Motors Corporation, La.App., , to support their claim that a jury may not refuse general damages to plaintiffs with objective injuries.
  • Roundtree v. Technical Welding & Fabrication Co. 364 So. 2d 1325 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
    Consistent with Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., we deem a proper award for loss of love and affection to be the sum of $20,000.00.
  • Jimcoily v. State Through Dept. of Highways 361 So. 2d 982 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
    1934(3); Coco v. Winston Ind., Inc., La.1977, .
  • Folse v. Fakouri 361 So. 2d 887 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
    In Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., the court held that the injured party is entitled to be compensated in damages for decreased earning capacity and rejected the measure of such damages as mathematical decrease in the wages of the individual.
  • McKenzie v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. 363 So. 2d 1340 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1978
  • Pierre v. Times-Picayune Publishing Co. 363 So. 2d 1301 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978