Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Schexnayder v. Carpenter, 346 So. 2d 196.

124 citing documents.

Ponder v. Groendyke Transport, Inc. 454 So. 2d 823 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
LeRay v. St. Paul Fire and Marine 444 So. 2d 1252 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
v. Carpenter et al., Bevil v. Heath Timber Company, Inc., (La.App.
Benson v. Seagraves 445 So. 2d 187 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
"It is only after [an] articulated analysis of the facts discloses an abuse of discretion, that the award may on appellate review, for articulated reason, be considered either excessive, (La.
Farnsworth v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. 442 So. 2d 1340 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
Cummings v. Nixon 442 So. 2d 1291 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
“It is only after [an] articulated analysis of the facts discloses an abuse of discretion, that the award may on appellate review, for articulated reason, be considered either excessive, Carollo v. Wil *1293 son, or insufficient, Olds v. Ashley, 250 La.
Cullivan v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 428 So. 2d 1231 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
It is only after articulated analysis of the facts discloses an abuse of discretion, that the award may on appellate review, for articulated reason, be considered either excessive, or insufficient, Olds v. Ashley, 250 La.
Gibson v. Winn Dixie Louisiana, Inc. 426 So. 2d 731 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
1977); or insufficient, Olds v. Ashley, 250 La.
Liner v. City of Houma 423 So. 2d 93 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
It is only after articulated analysis of the facts discloses an abuse of discretion, that the award may on appellate review, for articulated reason, be considered either excessive, or insufficient, Olds v. Ashley, 250 La.
Turner v. Kentie 422 So. 2d 493 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
It is only after articulated analysis of the facts discloses an abuse of discretion, that the award may on appellate review, for articulated reason, be considered either excessive, or insufficient, Olds v. Ashley, 250 La.
LeBlanc v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc. 420 So. 2d 1320 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
It is only after articulated analysis of the facts discloses an abuse of discretion, that the award may on appellate review, for articulated reason, be considered either excessive, or insufficient, Olds v. Ashley, 250 La.
Wilkinson v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. 421 So. 2d 440 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
Defendant contends that in determining plaintiff's damages this court must grant the lowest amount which the trial court could have awarded under the circumstances of the case, and in support thereof cites Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.App.
Greer v. Ouachita Coca-Cola Bottling Co. 420 So. 2d 540 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
Richard v. Trahan 417 So. 2d 103 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
It is only after articulated analysis of the facts discloses an abuse of discretion, that the award may on appellate review, for articulated reason, be considered either excessive, or insufficient, Olds v. Ashley, 250 La.
Merrell v. State, Through Dept. of Transp. 415 So. 2d 660 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
It is only after articulated analysis of the facts discloses an abuse of discretion, that the award may on appellate review, for articulated reason, be considered either excessive, or insufficient, Olds v. Ashley, 250 La.
Cage v. Shainberg's Stores of La. 413 So. 2d 564 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
v. Carpenter et al., Bevil v. Heath Timber Company, Inc., (La.
Tucker v. Howes 413 So. 2d 585 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
It is only after articulated analysis of the facts discloses an abuse of discretion, that the award may on appellate review, for articulated reason, be considered either excessive, or insufficient, Olds v. Ashley, 250 La.
Pincus v. Pumilia 412 So. 2d 151 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
holds that while the court must allow the jury wide discretion in making an award for pain and suffering to a plaintiff, it is within the province of the appellate court to review the jury award based on the record and reduce an obviously excessive award.
Green v. Farmers Ins. Co. 412 So. 2d 1136 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
Black v. Ebasco Services, Inc. 411 So. 2d 1159 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
It is only after articulated analysis of the facts discloses an abuse of discretion, that the award may on appellate review, for articulated reason, be considered either excessive, or insufficient, Olds v. Ashley, 250 La.
Blanchard v. A-1 Bit and Tool Co., Inc. 406 So. 2d 773 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
It is only after articulated analysis of the facts discloses an abuse of discretion, that the award may on appellate review, for articulated reason, be considered either excessive, or insufficient, Olds v. Ashley, 250 La.
Wattigny v. Lambert 408 So. 2d 1126 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
It is only after articulated analysis of the facts discloses an abuse of discretion, that the award may on appellate review, for articulated reason, be considered either excessive, or insufficient, Olds v. Ashley, 250 La.
Levesque v. Saba 402 So. 2d 266 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
It is only after articulated analysis of the facts discloses an abuse of discretion, that the award may on appellate review, for articulated reason, be considered either excessive, or insufficient, Olds v. Ashley, 250 La.
Autin v. Allstate Ins. Co. 402 So. 2d 219 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
It is only after articulated analysis of the facts discloses an abuse of discretion, that the award may on appellate review, for articulated reason, be considered either excessive, or insufficient, Olds.
Wilson v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. 401 So. 2d 500 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1981
*508 the court held that the appropriate procedure for testing whether the jury abused its discretion by making an excessive award is to determine whether the award can be supported under the interpretation of the evidence most favorable to the plaintiff which reasonably could have been made by the jury.
Locicero v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co. 399 So. 2d 712 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
It is only after articulated analysis of the facts discloses an abuse of discretion, that the award may on appellate review, for articulated reason, be considered either excessive, or insufficient, Olds v. Ashley, 250 La.
Provost v. A. E. Gravois & Sons, Inc. 398 So. 2d 1287 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
It is only after articulated analysis of the facts discloses an abuse of discretion, that the award may on appellate review, for articulated reason, be considered either excessive, or insufficient, Olds v. Ashley, 250 La.
Mullin v. Vessier 400 So. 2d 1192 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
It is only after articulated analysis of the facts discloses an abuse of discretion, that the award may on appellate review, for articulated reason, be considered either excessive, or insufficient, Olds v. Ashley, 250 La.
Cappo v. Vinson Guard Service, Inc. 400 So. 2d 1148 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
In that decision the court outlined the test for appellate courts to use in reviewing awards as follows: "It is only after articulated analysis of the facts discloses an abuse of discretion, that the award may on appellate review, for articulated reason, be considered either excessive, or insufficient, Olds v. Ashley, 250 La.
Knuckles v. Beaugh 392 So. 2d 710 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
Olds v. Ashley, [ 250 La.
Weissbohn v. Gulf Insurance Co. 392 So. 2d 752 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
4th Cir. 1977), writ refused, (1977): $10,000 (reduced from $40,000); : $30,000 (increased from $15,000); (La.App.
Richard v. Guillory 392 So. 2d 777 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
3 Cir. 1976), amended and affirmed, (La.
Chaney v. Our Lady of Fatima Cath. Church 391 So. 2d 501 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
Litton v. Home Indemnity Co. 391 So. 2d 541 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
It is only after articulated analysis of the facts discloses an abuse of discretion, that the award may on appellate review, for articulated reason, be considered either excessive, or insufficient, Olds v. Ashley, 250 La.
Prats v. Moffett 391 So. 2d 1299 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
It is only after articulated analysis of the facte discloses an abuse of discretion, that the award may on appellate review, for *1303 articulated reason, be considered either excessive, or insufficient, Olds v. Ashley, 250 La.
Benedic v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. 389 So. 2d 871 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
It is only after articulated analysis of the facts discloses an abuse of discretion, that the award may on appellate review, for articulated reasons, be considered either excessive, or insufficient, Olds v. Ashley, 250 La.
Hawthorne v. Southeastern Fidelity Ins. Co. 387 So. 2d 26 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
Article 1934(3); Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., and, convince us that the award is clearly not excessive.
Richard v. Southwest Louisiana Hospital Ass'n 383 So. 2d 83 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
*90 Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
Choate v. Greene 386 So. 2d 948 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
It is only after articulated analysis of the facts discloses an abuse of discretion, that the award may on appellate review, for articulated reason, be considered either excessive, or insufficient, Olds v. Ashley, 250 La.
Johnson v. Coca Cola Bottling Co., Inc. 386 So. 2d 993 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
It is only after articulated analysis of the facts discloses an abuse of discretion, that the award may on appellate review, for articulated reason, be considered either excessive, or insufficient, Olds v. Ashley, 250 La.
Hebert v. Diamond M Co. 385 So. 2d 410 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
It is only after articulated analysis of the facts discloses an abuse of discretion, that the award may on appellate review, for articulated reason, be considered either excessive, or insufficient, Olds v. Ashley, 250 La.
Johnson v. Franks 383 So. 2d 117 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
It is only after articulated analysis of the facts discloses an abuse of discretion, that the award may on appellate review, for articulated reason, be considered either excessive, or insufficient, Olds v. Ashley, 250 La.
Perry v. Domingue 383 So. 2d 130 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
It is only after articulated analysis of the facts discloses an abuse of discretion, that the award may on appellate review, for articulated reason, be considered either excessive, or insufficient, Olds v. Ashley, 250 La.
Besnard v. Department of Highways 381 So. 2d 1303 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
It is only after articulated analysis of the facts discloses an abuse of discretion, that the award may on appellate review, for articulated reason, be considered either excessive, or insufficient, Olds v. Ashley, 250 La.
Veuleman v. Sims 382 So. 2d 245 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
Jackson v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co. 382 So. 2d 223 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
Our increase in the amount of the award is not violative of the principles set forth in Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., since the increase is made to compensate plaintiff for damages at first not believed to be causally related to the accident, not to correct a trial court's abuse of discretion in making an award.
Smith v. Andrepont 378 So. 2d 479 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
Wexler v. Occhipinti 378 So. 2d 1073 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1979
It is only after articulated analysis of the facts discloses an abuse of discretion, that the award may on appellate review, for articulated reason, be considered either excessive, or insufficient, Olds v. Ashley, 250 La.
Marshall v. Commercial Union Insurance 378 So. 2d 1052 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
The cases cited in support of the inadequacy of the Marshall award are: David v. Houston Fire & Casualty Insurance Co., writ refused 257 La.
Recherche, Inc. v. Jewelry Jungle, Inc. 377 So. 2d 1329 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
Placide v. Jay 378 So. 2d 473 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., supra.