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.

  • Borne v. Brumfield 363 So. 2d 79 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
    Considering all the circumstances, we believe the verdict to be reasonable and, within the *84 we must affirm.
  • Sherwood v. Sepulvado 362 So. 2d 1161 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1978
    The trial judge's decision is accorded great weight in these circumstances, Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., and we find the record supports his conclusion that mitigation of damages was appropriate under the facts presented.
  • Mitt v. Security Insurance Co. 361 So. 2d 465 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
    1934(3); Coco v. Winston Ind., Inc., La.1977, .
  • Lofton v. Cade 359 So. 2d 1074 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1978
    Having so concluded, we must now examine what would be the lowest possible award which the jury could have made under the rule of Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., and its progeny.
  • Mouton v. Godchaux's Inc. 360 So. 2d 600 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
    As to quantum of general damages, for guidance.
  • Ulmer v. Baton Rouge General Hospital 361 So. 2d 1238 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
    See also Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Fowler v. Western Union Tel. Co. 357 So. 2d 1305 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1978
  • Smith v. Government Employees Insurance 358 So. 2d 1289 La. 1978
    In Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., La., (1977), we 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.
  • LeJeune v. Allstate Ins. Co. 356 So. 2d 537 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1978
    points out that the trier of fact has a wide latitude in the assessment of damages.
  • Billedeaux v. Adams 355 So. 2d 1345 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1978
    3 Cir. 1976), reversed on other grounds, , and cases cited therein.
  • Bordelon v. Sentry Insurance 359 So. 2d 1046 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
    Inc., La.1977, , we would leave undisturbed a $15,000 award for all the injuries found by the trial judge.
  • Wilson v. Magee 359 So. 2d 315 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
    We believe that under the rationale of Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., a figure of $20,000 for general damages is appropriate, particularly considering the acute mental distress surrounding the very accident itself.
  • Derbofen v. TL James & Co., Inc. 355 So. 2d 963 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
    To some degree this principle supports the same basic principles behind cases like Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., in the setting of damages.
  • Lachney v. Motor Parts & Bearing Supply 357 So. 2d 1277 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1978
    See Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Prevost v. New Orleans Public Service Inc. 357 So. 2d 1371 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
    See Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Danos v. Foret 354 So. 2d 667 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
    Using the cited cases and other reported cases which we considered related to this issue merely as an aid, not to place too much emphasis on "other reported cases", we feel that in the final analysis the appropriateness of the award in each case turns on its own peculiar facts.
  • Leaber v. Jolley Elevator Corp. 354 So. 2d 746 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Garden Hill Land Corp. v. Cambre 354 So. 2d 1064 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
  • Adams v. State, Dept. of Highways 357 So. 2d 1239 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1978
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., *1243 (La.1976).
  • McKowen v. Gulf States Utilities Co. 358 So. 2d 675 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
    We find the award of general damages well within the discretion permitted the jury pursuant to Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.
  • Barr v. State, Through La. Dept. of Highways 355 So. 2d 52 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1978
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Chmurka v. Southern Farm Bur. Ins. Co. 357 So. 2d 1207 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
    Recognizing that other decisions on matters of quantum are not binding, as no two cases are really fully alike, Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., we believe that as we are called upon under the circumstances to make the initial judgment on quantum, similar cases will be of some assistance in reaching an amount.
  • Robichaux v. Cade 357 So. 2d 849 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
    Anderson v. Welding, Testing Laboratory, Inc., Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Robinson v. SAFECO Insurance Co. of America 357 So. 2d 79 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Jenkins v. Ferguson 357 So. 2d 39 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
    We find that the amount awarded is within the broad discretion granted to the trial court in accordance with the jurisprudence and particularly in Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Blancher v. Samuels 354 So. 2d 213 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
    Although this is not a situation where we simply increase an inadequate award, we conclude that the principle announced in Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., is still persuasive to our setting an amount here at the lowest adequate amount.
  • Demars v. Natchitoches Coca-Cola Bottling Co. 353 So. 2d 433 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1978
    We have carefully examined the record in light of the principles of appellate review of damages recently announced by our Supreme Court in Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., and find the award neither excessive nor inadequate.
  • Washington v. Lake City Beverage, Inc. 352 So. 2d 717 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1978
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., La., (1976).
  • Wallace v. Pan American Fire & Cas. Co. 352 So. 2d 1048 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1978
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Norris v. King 355 So. 2d 21 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1978
    While the award may be somewhat low, we do not find it to be outside of the perimeters of Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.
  • Moss v. Travelers Indem. Co. 351 So. 2d 290 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1978
    Since the trial judge made no awards, we are not restricted by the rules *294 in Coco v. Winston Industrial, Inc., as to increasing or reducing awards.
  • Himel v. American Employers Insurance 354 So. 2d 606 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
  • Weathersby v. Kersbergen 356 So. 2d 498 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Bergeron v. Louisiana Department of Highways 353 So. 2d 469 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    In reversing the jury’s award of damages, we must look for guidance to Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Carollo v. Wilson 353 So. 2d 249 La. 1977
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.
  • Ardoin v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. 350 So. 2d 205 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
    In the case of Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., the court re-emphasizing these principles 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 .
  • Moss v. Security Nat. Ins. Co. 350 So. 2d 247 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
    In reversing the trial jury, and making an assessment of damages where the trial jury awarded no damages, we must look for guidance to Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Barnes v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. 350 So. 2d 288 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
    We have reviewed the remaining awards under recent guidelines for appellate review as set down in Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., et al., (La.
  • LeJeune v. Flash Truck Line, Inc. 353 So. 2d 296 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., La.C.C.
  • Frickie v. Scarbrough 356 So. 2d 447 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    Art. 1934(3); Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Vincent v. Ryder Enterprises, Inc. 352 So. 2d 1061 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
    In considering the issue of quantum before us we must bear in mind the case of Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., wherein 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.
  • McNulty v. D & G Maintenance Corp. 352 So. 2d 337 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    See Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • London v. Ryan 349 So. 2d 1334 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., La., (1976).
  • Williams v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 349 So. 2d 1275 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    " Considering the dictum of the Supreme Court in Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., we find this award to be within the very broad discretion accorded district judges in fixing awards.
  • Williams v. Hanover Ins. Co. of New York 351 So. 2d 858 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1977
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (1977).
  • Spearman v. Barron 351 So. 2d 856 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Whatley v. Red Ball Motor Freight, Inc. 351 So. 2d 850 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1977
    Louisiana Civil Code Article 1934(3); Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Bodi v. Government Emp. Ins. Co. 349 So. 2d 1327 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    We are ever mindful of the principle enunciated in Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., that awards for damages lie within the much discretion of the trier of fact and are not to be disturbed on appeal unless there is a manifest abuse of the discretion.
  • Gregorie v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. 348 So. 2d 186 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
    In the recent landmark case of Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.
  • Faulk v. Power Rig Drilling Co. 348 So. 2d 219 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
    See Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.