DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

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.

  • Riley v. Salley 874 So. 2d 874 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Roberts v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. 878 So. 2d 631 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
    *644 (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."
  • Lousteau v. K-Mart Corp. 871 So. 2d 618 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
  • Gaynell Finnie, Indiv. v. Jerry Leblanc La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc., (internal citations omitted).
  • J. Quentin Simon v. Jeffery T. Reel La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Vera R. Paine v. Avoyelles Council on Aging La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    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.
  • Paine v. Avoyelles Council on Aging 869 So. 2d 291 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
    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.
  • Simon v. Reel 867 So. 2d 174 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Craige v. Broome 869 So. 2d 242 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
    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.
  • Engles v. City of New Orleans 872 So. 2d 1166 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
    art.1999; Coco v. *1177 Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Dana Desselle v. Michael Lafleur La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Desselle v. LaFleur 865 So. 2d 954 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Turner v. Lyons 867 So. 2d 13 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Incorporated
  • Thonn v. Cook 863 So. 2d 628 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
    the Louisiana Supreme Court stated: At the outset, we note that this case is not fully governed by the principles set forth in Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Bonin v. Ferrellgas, Inc. 855 So. 2d 781 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
  • Earl Lee Scott and Felicia A. Scott v. James Ray Roberts and State of La, Thru the Dotd La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., Spillers v. Montgomery Ward & Co.
  • Scott v. Roberts 856 So. 2d 1258 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., Spillers v. Montgomery Ward & Co.
  • Owens v. Brown 864 So. 2d 640 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
    Clement, supra; Hill v. Morehouse Parish Police Jury, 95-1100 (La.01/16/96), ; Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Estate of Hickerson v. Zimmerman 853 So. 2d 55 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    Clement, 666 So.2d at 611 ; Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Green v. K-Mart Corp. 849 So. 2d 814 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
    In this case, because the jury made an award
  • Lebato v. Safeway Insurance Co. 852 So. 2d 446 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    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.
  • Johnson v. Lanoix 847 So. 2d 1283 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
    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.
  • Tauzier v. Kraus 845 So. 2d 1208 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    239 , (1963) through Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., 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.
  • Johnson v. Foti 844 So. 2d 1050 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Millet v. Schmidt 844 So. 2d 1072 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., Merritt v. Karcioglu, 95-1335 (La.App.
  • Ratliff v. STATE EX REL. DOTD 844 So. 2d 926 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    Turner v. Ostrowe, XXXX-XXXX at p. 5, 828 So.2d at 1216-17 , citing Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., Dennis v. The Finish Line, Inc., 99-1413, p. 20 (La.App.
  • Fremin v. Continental Ins. Co. 839 So. 2d 1137 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.
  • Millet v. Evangeline Health Care, Inc. 839 So. 2d 357 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Bujol v. Entergy Services, Inc. 833 So. 2d 947 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    In making this determination, the trial court is not bound by the constraints imposed on appellate courts in Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., of lowering the award to the highest point or raising the award to the lowest point reasonably within the discretion afforded that court.
  • Frazier v. Zapata Protein USA, Inc. 832 So. 2d 1141 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
    239 , (1963) through Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.
  • Hall v. Brookshire Bros., Ltd. 831 So. 2d 1010 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
    Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc.
  • Angelle v. Delery 833 So. 2d 469 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
    Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc.
  • Green v. K-Mart Corp. 834 So. 2d 1084 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
    In this case, because the jury made an award
  • Davis v. Witt 831 So. 2d 1075 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
  • Wingfield v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation & Development 835 So. 2d 785 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    point which is reasonably within the discretion afforded that court.” Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Wingfield v. STATE, DEPT. OF TRANSP. 835 So. 2d 785 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Coleman v. Deno 832 So. 2d 1016 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
    art.1999; Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Turner v. Ostrowe 828 So. 2d 1212 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc., Dennis v. The Finish Line, Inc., 99-1413 (La.App.
  • Riley v. Maison Orleans II, Inc. 829 So. 2d 479 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
    1059 , 127 L.Ed.2d 379 (1994); Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Carey v. Rao 828 So. 2d 53 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    art.1999, Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Augillard v. Gaspard 820 So. 2d 1177 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc.
  • Simmons v. Transit Management of Southeast Louisiana, Inc. 819 So. 2d 1083 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Squibb v. Century Group, Inc. 824 So. 2d 361 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
    Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc.
  • Brown v. Catalyst Recovery of Louisiana, Inc. 813 So. 2d 1156 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
    Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc.
  • Bowie v. Young 813 So. 2d 562 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.
  • Harvey v. Cole 808 So. 2d 771 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
    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.
  • Dennis v. Turner 806 So. 2d 942 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Bertrand v. Henry 815 So. 2d 868 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
    APPORTIONMENT OF FAULT Turning now to the issue of apportionment of fault, we note: Where an alleged tortfeasor is found to be blameless by a factfinder and comparative fault is, therefore, not assessed between the parties, an appellate court is not compelled to apply the manifestly erroneous standard of review and the Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., methodology in lowering or raising the percentages of fault.
  • Keel v. West Louisiana Health Services 803 So. 2d 382 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
    We review the trial court's general damage award using the abuse of discretion standard set forth in Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Hicks v. State 802 So. 2d 1005 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001