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.

  • Phillips v. Great Southern Mortg. & Loan Corp. 350 So. 2d 1279 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.
  • Veazie v. Consolidated Companies 350 So. 2d 1302 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    According to Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., a Court of Appeal can disturb an award made by a trial court only when the record clearly reveals the trier of fact abused its discretion in making its award.
  • Bourg v. Redden 351 So. 2d 1300 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    Article 1934(3); Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., La., (1976).
  • Monnerjahn v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co. 350 So. 2d 1249 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    As to the $25,000 we cannot say this is an abuse of discretion in the light of Coco v. Winston, La., (1976).
  • Billeaud v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 349 So. 2d 1379 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    The issues posed by this appeal are as "follows: (1) Was the jury award inadequate, and if so, did the jury abuse the “much discretion”
  • Billeaud v. UNITED STATE FIDELITY & GUAR. CO. 349 So. 2d 1379 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
    The issues posed by this appeal are as follows: (1) Was the jury award inadequate, and if so, did the jury abuse the "much discretion"
  • Miller v. Employers Mut. Liability Ins. Co. 349 So. 2d 1353 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1977
    3d Cir. 1976), reversed as to quantum, (La.
  • Allen v. Toups 348 So. 2d 1270 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    959 , , and the long line of cases which follows that -decision, including Canter v. Koehring Company, La., , and Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., La., .
  • Mueller v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. 348 So. 2d 1296 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    1934(3) and Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Owens v. New Orleans Bldg. Maintenance, Inc. 349 So. 2d 494 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1977
    We cannot say that the trial judge abused his discretion
  • Goff v. Occhipinti 349 So. 2d 1325 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    1973) and Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Carville v. Travelers Insurance Co. 348 So. 2d 715 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
  • Graham v. Rudison 348 So. 2d 711 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    art. 1934 (3); Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.
  • Fusilier v. Russell 345 So. 2d 543 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
    Since that time, the Supreme Court has reinstated the original jury award in Coco
  • Salter v. Travelers Insurance Co. 347 So. 2d 902 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    See also Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Bevil v. HEATH TIMBER CO., INC. 347 So. 2d 889 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
    We find that the quantum issue in the instant suit is controlled by Louisiana Civil Code Article 1934(3) and the recent Louisiana Supreme Court case of Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Kidder v. Anderson 345 So. 2d 922 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    In considering the jury award in the instant case, we must consider it in light of the recent Louisiana Supreme Court decision of Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., and in light of the "chilling effect" which the threat of potentially large defamation verdicts poses to the exercise of First Amendment rights.
  • Wagner v. Hazelquist 347 So. 2d 1265 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    We would have thought that Anderson v. Welding Testing Laboratory, Inc., and now Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., had permanently disabused any appealing parties of the idea that “similar” injuries necessitates “similar” awards.
  • Lindsay v. Cumis Insurance Society, Inc. 347 So. 2d 1285 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    Considering the recent decision of our Supreme Court in Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., wherein 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.
  • Breaux v. Louisiana Dept. of Highways 347 So. 2d 1290 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Cvitanovich v. Sorli 347 So. 2d 1204 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
  • Johnson v. International Ins. Co. 347 So. 2d 1279 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    The trial judge's award for this item of damages does not measure up to the minimum allowable award in accordance with the standard provided by our Supreme Court in the case of Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Svaboda v. Moville 346 So. 2d 891 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
  • Gaudet v. Allstate Ins. Co. 346 So. 2d 333 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1977
    Most recently, the Louisiana Supreme Court, in Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., attempted to further instruct intermediate appellate courts regarding their ambit of review.
  • Schexnayder v. Carpenter 346 So. 2d 196 La. 1977
    Recently, in reviewing the reduction of a we approved the statements of law contained in many of these decisions.
  • Richard v. Zurich Insurance 346 So. 2d 1327 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    finds that as a result of this accident, the plaintiff sustained a cervical and lumbosacral strain, was struck in the groin, and suffered contusions of his chest and right ankle.” Although the Highway Department does not question the quantum of this award we have reviewed same in light of the principles of appellate review of damage awards recently reiterated in Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., and conclude that such award should not be disturbed.
  • Southwest Louisiana Electric Membership Corp. v. Dupuis 345 So. 2d 1280 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Pickens v. State ex rel. Department of Highways 346 So. 2d 1325 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    We have reviewed the award in this case in light of the principles of appellate review of damage awards recently reiterated by our Supreme Court in Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., and conclude that the award made should not be disturbed.
  • Thierry v. Pickens 346 So. 2d 1328 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    He complained that he continued to suffer minimal pain and discomfort and difficulty from his leg and back injuries.” Although the Highway Department does not question the quantum of this award we have reviewed the same in light of the principles of appellate review of damage awards recently reiterated in Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., and conclude that such award should not be disturbed.
  • Charles v. Pickens 346 So. 2d 1329 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    f the trial of these proceedings he claimed residual pain, disability and discomfort, particularly in reference to the large laceration on his arm and rib and neck injuries.” Although the Highway Department does not question the quantum of this award we have reviewed same in light of the principles of appellate review of damage awards *1331 recently reiterated in Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., and conclude that such award should not be disturbed.
  • Corley v. West 346 So. 2d 1272 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., and cases cited therein.
  • Shively v. Pickens 346 So. 2d 1314 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.
  • Walker v. St. Paul Ins. Companies 343 So. 2d 251 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    This matter is now before us on remand from the Honorable Supreme Court, State of Louisiana, with instructions to review our assessment of quantum in light of the recent decision rendered by them in Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc. et al., rendered by the Supreme Court on December 13, 1976, La., , rehearing denied 1977.
  • Boss v. Twillie 345 So. 2d 1261 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., La., (1976).
  • Rheams v. McCray 346 So. 2d 834 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., La., (1976).
  • Profit v. Linn 346 So. 2d 253 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    In the recent case of Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., the Supreme Court has explicated the character of appellate review of quantum awards, in the following language: "Only after making the finding that the record supports that the lower court abused its much discretion can the appellate court disturb the award, and then only to the extent of lowering it (or r
  • Jerry Joseph Fontenot, Ind. v. STATE, ETC. 346 So. 2d 849 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    See Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., La., (1976).
  • Dyson v. Gulf Modular Corp. 345 So. 2d 1222 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    Art. 1934(3), Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., et al., (La.
  • Andrepont v. Naquin 345 So. 2d 1216 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Carollo v. Wilson 345 So. 2d 601 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    See Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., La.1976, .
  • Richardson v. Department of Highways 345 So. 2d 985 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Wilson v. Dixie Auto Insurance 345 So. 2d 994 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Handy v. LeJeune 341 So. 2d 1386 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
  • Hernandez v. Showalter 344 So. 2d 1174 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    285 , (1971); Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Smith v. Casualty Reciprocal Exchange 345 So. 2d 572 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.S.Ct.
  • Sanders v. Hall 345 So. 2d 590 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    When we consider the medical testimony, Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., we are compelled to conclude that the $2,000.00 general damage award for each of the plaintiffs is within the judicial discretion of the trial judge.
  • O'DONNELL v. Fidelity General Ins. Co. 344 So. 2d 91 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1977
  • Smith v. Early American Insurance Co. of Montgomery 344 So. 2d 397 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
  • Ledet v. Hibernia National Bank of New Orleans 344 So. 2d 52 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    See Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Jinks v. McClure 344 So. 2d 675 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977