Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., 341 So. 2d 332.

1757 citing documents.

August F. Tjon v. Dr. Steve Fitzgerald La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
10/17/00)], 774 So.2d at 74 (quoting Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc., (internal citations omitted)).
In Re Medical Review Panel Claim of Dunjee 57 So. 3d 541 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
4 See Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
Mixter v. Wilson 54 So. 3d 1164 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2010
Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc.
Henry Adam Baltazar, Etc. v. Dennis R. Wolinski La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc.
Baltazar v. Wolinski 53 So. 3d 591 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc.
Carolann Downing v. John Miller La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
10/17/00), ” Consequently, an appellate court can only disturb an award of damages if the record “clearly reveal[s] that the trier of fact abused its discretion in making its award.” Wainwright, 774 So.2d at 74 (quoting Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc., ).
Smegal v. Gettys 48 So. 3d 431 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc.
Howard v. Union Carbide Corp. 50 So. 3d 1251 La. 2010
Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc.
Nicol E. Hannie v. Ray Allen Guidry La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc.
Patricia Case and Patrick Case v. Shelter Insurance Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
As the Louisiana Supreme Court stated: Our jurisprudence has consistently held that in the assessment of damages, much discretion is left to the judge or jury, and upon appellate review such awards will be disturbed only when there has been a clear abuse of that discretion, Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
Hannie v. Guidry 48 So. 3d 396 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc.
Case v. Shelter Insurance Co. 48 So. 3d 1196 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
As the Louisiana Supreme Court stated: Our jurisprudence has consistently held that in the assessment of damages, much discretion is left to the judge or jury, and upon appellate review such awards will be disturbed only when there has been a clear abuse of that discretion, Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
Williams v. Stewart 46 So. 3d 266 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
Schysm v. Boyd 47 So. 3d 977 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
Alisa Simon v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
Because we find legal error in the trial court’s award of damages, we are not bound by the highest/lowest constraints articulated in Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc., (La.
Simon v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 43 So. 3d 990 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Because we find legal error in the trial court’s award of damages, we are not bound by the highest/lowest constraints articulated in Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc., cert.
See v. Entergy Corp. 35 So. 3d 1081 La. 2010
Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc.
Barbara Raymond v. Government Employees Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
Wainwright, 00-0492, p. 6, 774 So.2d at 74 (quoting Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc., (internal citations omitted)).
Raymond v. Government Employees Insurance 40 So. 3d 1179 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Wainwright , 00-0492, p. 6, 774 So.2d at 74 (quoting Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc., (internal citations omitted)).
Laura Cox Brown v. Shelter Insurance Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc.
Cox v. Shelter Insurance Co. 34 So. 3d 398 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc.
Louisiana Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company v. Perricone 34 So. 3d 1166 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc., (La.
Scott Ferguson v. Loewer Powersports & Equipment La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
Wainwright, 00-0492, p. 6, 774 So.2d at 74 (quoting Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc., (internal citations omitted)).
Ferguson v. LOEWER POWERSPORTS & EQUIPMENT 33 So. 3d 446 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Wainwright , 00-0492, p. 6, 774 So.2d at 74 (quoting Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc., (internal citations omitted)).
Philip Smith v. University Animal Clinic, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
The prior awards may serve as an aid in this determination only where, on an articulated basis, the present award is shown to be greatly disproportionate to past awards (not selected past awards, but the mass of them) for (truly) “similar” injuries, see Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
Smith v. University Animal Clinic, Inc. 30 So. 3d 1154 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
The prior awards may serve as an aid in this determination only where, on an articulated basis, the present award is shown to be greatly disproportionate to past awards (not selected past awards, but the mass of them) for (truly) “similar” injuries, see Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
Donald R. Alexander v. Ira M. Tate La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc.
Alexander v. Tate 30 So. 3d 1122 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc.
Graham v. Offshore Specialty Fabricators, Inc. 37 So. 3d 1002 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc., Moss v. State, 07-1686 (La.App.
Margie F. Martin v. Safeway Insurance co.of Louisiana La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
Johnson v. Morehouse General Hospital 27 So. 3d 1085 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
Clement, supra; Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
James Lastrapes, Et Ux. v. Progressive Insurance Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc.
Lastrapes v. Progressive Security Insurance Co. 24 So. 3d 993 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc.
Melba Lee See v. Entergy Corporation La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
On the other hand, if the answer is in the negative, 16 then the trial court properly granted the JNOV, and its damage award 17 based on its independent assessment of the damages is the judgment of 18 the trial court which is reviewed on appeal under the constraints of Coco 19 [v. Winston Industries, Inc., ].
See v. Entergy Corp. 24 So. 3d 267 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
On the other hand, if the answer is in the negative, then the trial court properly granted the JNOV, and its damage award based on its independent assessment of the damages is the judgment of the trial court which is reviewed on appeal under the constraints of Coco [v. Winston Industries, Inc., ].
Howard v. Union Carbide Corp. 21 So. 3d 1084 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
239, (1963) through Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., and through Reck to the present case is that the discretion vested in the trier of fact is “great,” and even vast, so that an appellate court should rarely disturb an award of general damages.
Mac Normand v. Village of Hessmer La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc. (La.
Normand v. VILLAGE OF HESSMER 18 So. 3d 801 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc. (La.
Nelson Radiology Associates, L.L.C. v. Integrity Medical Systems, Inc. 16 So. 3d 1197 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Anderson v. Welding Testing Lab., Inc., Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc.
Logan v. Brink's Inc. 16 So. 3d 530 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
1059 , 127 L.Ed.2d 379 (1994); Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., ).
Guillory v. Lee 16 So. 3d 1104 La. 2009
Wainwright , 00-0492, p. 6, 774 So.2d at 74 (quoting Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc., (internal citations omitted)).
Betty Augustine, Et Vir. v. Safeco National Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
On the other hand, if the answer is in the negative, then the trial court properly granted the JNOV, and its damage award based on its independent assessment of the damages is the judgment of the trial court which is reviewed on appeal under the constraints of Coco, [v. Winston Industries, Inc., ].
Augustine v. Safeco National Ins. Co. 18 So. 3d 761 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
On the other hand, if the answer is in the negative, then the trial court properly granted the JNOV, and its damage award based on its independent assessment of the damages is the judgment of the trial court which is reviewed on appeal under the constraints of Coco, [v. Winston Industries, Inc., ].
Kenneth Wayne Jackson v. Brookshire Grocery Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc.
Jackson v. Brookshire Grocery Co. 11 So. 3d 741 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc.
Ruffin v. Burton 34 So. 3d 301 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc.
Rando v. Anco Insulations Inc. 16 So. 3d 1065 La. 2009
The prior awards may serve as an aid in this determination only where, on an articulated basis, the present award is shown to be greatly disproportionate to past awards (not selected past awards, but the mass of them) for (truly) “similar” injuries, see Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
Nunnery v. City of Kenner 17 So. 3d 411 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
5, 774 So.2d at 74 ; Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc., Beausejour, 08-379 at 6, 996 So.2d at 628 .
Hawkins v. AMERICAN CENTURY CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY 7 So. 3d 891 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
239 , (1963) through Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., and through Reck [v. Stevens, ] to the present case is that the discretion vested in the trier of fact is "great," and even vast, so that an appellate court should rarely disturb an award of general damages.
Herman Singleton v. Hector Martinez La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc.