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.

  • Hussey v. Russell 934 So. 2d 766 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
    Rather, the supreme court in Clement instructed appellate courts that the appropriate approach, after finding manifest error in apportionment of fault, is to apply the Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., approach used with respect to an erroneous damages award; i.e., "it should adjust the award, but only to the extent of lowering or raising it to the highest or lowest point respectively which is reasonably within the trial court's discretion."
  • Melancon v. Lafayette Ins. Co. 926 So. 2d 693 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc.
  • Rico v. Sewerage & Water Board of New Orleans 929 So. 2d 143 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
    Coco v. Winston Ind,., Inc.
  • James E. Viviano, Et Ux. v. Progressive Security Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    239, (1963) through Coco v. Winston 13 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.
  • Viviano v. Progressive SEC. Ins. Co. 920 So. 2d 313 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    239 , (1963) through Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.
  • Raines v. Columbia Lakeland Medical Center 923 So. 2d 170 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
    Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc.
  • Gerard Simon and Monica Simon v. Francois Lacoste La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc.
  • Simon v. Lacoste 918 So. 2d 1102 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc.
  • Joseph Moraus v. Jennifer Frederick La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc.
  • Tessica Spears v. City of Scott La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc.
  • Moraus v. Frederick 916 So. 2d 474 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc.
  • Spears v. City of Scott 915 So. 2d 983 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc.
  • M. Jayne Yellot v. Underwriters In. Co. and Sabine Pools, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    Inc., see also Veazey v. State Farm Mut.
  • Yellott v. Underwriters Ins. Co. 915 So. 2d 917 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    Inc., see also Veazey v. State Farm Mut.
  • Stephen P. Basco, Et Ux. v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc.
  • Basco v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. 909 So. 2d 660 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc.
  • Doe Ex Rel. Doe v. Desoto Parish School Bd. 907 So. 2d 275 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
    See Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., for purposes of then determining what would be an appropriate award for the present case.
  • Elridge Menard and Pauline Menard v. Federated Mutual Insurance Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc.
  • Menard v. Federated Mut. Ins. Co. 906 So. 2d 746 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc.
  • Stanford v. Town of Ball 903 So. 2d 1235 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    We review the trial court's general damage award using the abuse of discretion standard set forth in Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Rodney Knox v. Calcasieu Parish Police Jury La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    10/17/00), (quoting Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc., ): Before a Court of Appeal can disturb an award made by a [factfinder,] the record must clearly reveal that the trier of fact abused its discretion in making its award.
  • Knox v. Calcasieu Parish Police Jury 900 So. 2d 1128 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
    The standard of review for an award for damages is set forth in Wainwright v. Fontenot, 00-192, p. 6 (La.10/17/00), (quoting Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc., ): Before a Court of Appeal can disturb an award made by a [factfinder,] the record must clearly reveal that the trier of fact abused its discretion in making its award.
  • In re New Orleans Train Car Leakage Fire Litigation 903 So. 2d 9 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
    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 in a particular case.
  • Motton v. Lockheed Martin Corp. 900 So. 2d 901 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Wilson v. Transportation Consultants, Inc. 899 So. 2d 590 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Bailey v. Nunez 898 So. 2d 589 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., Spillers v. Montgomery Ward & Co.
  • Daniels v. Seruntine 900 So. 2d 47 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
    Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc.
  • LeMasters v. Boyd Gaming Corp. 898 So. 2d 497 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
    Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc.
  • Wilson v. LeBlanc 906 So. 2d 529 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
    Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc., Dennis v. The Finish Line, Inc., 99-1413, pp. 19-20 (La.App.
  • Ginger McIntosh, Indiv. v. Wayne F. McElveen, Sheriff La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc.
  • McIntosh v. McElveen 893 So. 2d 986 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc.
  • Henry v. Williams 892 So. 2d 765 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
    Inc., Sepulvado v. Turner, 37,912 (La.App.
  • Noran J. Robin, Jr., Et Ux. v. Allstate Indemnity Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    al), the supreme court restated the law concerning appellate review of damage awards as follows: 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.
  • Robin v. Allstate Indemnity Co. 889 So. 2d 450 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
    0 (La.1993) (alteration in original), the supreme court restated the law concerning appellate review of damage awards as follows: 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.
  • Sam A. Daigle and Theresa M. Daigle v. Trinity United Mortgage, LLC & Joe Diez La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc., (internal citations omitted).
  • Daigle v. Trinity United Mortgage, L.L.C. 890 So. 2d 583 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
    Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc., (internal citations omitted).
  • Washington v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. 886 So. 2d 572 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., cert.
  • Joseph v. Houston 886 So. 2d 1133 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Brooks v. SO. U. AND AGR. AND MECH. COLLEGE 877 So. 2d 1194 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
    Then, if the appellate court determines that the JNOV was properly *1225 granted, the second part of the inquiry is to review the JNOV according to the manifest error standard as enunciated in Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Thibodeaux v. Jurgelsky 879 So. 2d 909 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
  • Finnie v. LeBlanc 875 So. 2d 71 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc., (internal citations omitted).
  • Guillot v. Doe 879 So. 2d 374 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    Therefore, according to the dictates of Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc., I would reduce the award of general damages to the highest point reasonably within the trial court's discretion.
  • Melvin G. Guillot, Indiv. Etc v. John Doe, Indiv. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    2 See Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc.
  • Cole v. STATE, DEPT. OF PUBLIC SAFETY 886 So. 2d 463 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
    (citing Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., *466 ), the court instructed that, "Only after such a determination of an abuse of discretion is a resort to prior awards appropriate and then for the purpose of determining the highest or lowest point which is reasonably within that discretion."
  • Musacchia v. Hilton New Orleans Corp. 876 So. 2d 901 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Baudier v. Cheron 876 So. 2d 165 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
    Charles, Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., supra
  • Scarbrough v. OK Guard Dogs 879 So. 2d 239 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
    (citing Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., ), the court instructed that, "Only after such a determination of an abuse of discretion is a resort to prior awards appropriate and then for the purpose of determining the highest or lowest point which is reasonably within that discretion."
  • Alexis Davey Taylor v. Allstate Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    We review the jury’s general damage award using the abuse of discretion standard set forth in Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Taylor v. Allstate Insurance Co. 872 So. 2d 621 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
    We review the jury’s general damage award using the abuse of discretion standard set forth in Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Craft v. Sewerage & Water Board of New Orleans 874 So. 2d 908 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
    at 1260; Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.