DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

124 citing documents.

  • Thomisee v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 376 So. 2d 1056 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    Article 1934(3); Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., and, and find that the award made is clearly excessive for the reasons set forth hereafter.
  • Dillon v. Rice 375 So. 2d 742 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    Considering the facts, as we must, in the light most favorable to plaintiff, we conclude there is sufficient evidence to indicate that from July 8, 1976 to the date of trial, plaintiff suffered steady pain.
  • Hebert v. Town of Ville Platte 373 So. 2d 229 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    Article 1934; Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • LeJeune v. Allstate Ins. Co. 373 So. 2d 212 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
    do not apply, and, therefore, that we are justified in reconsidering the amounts awarded.
  • Reck v. Stevens 373 So. 2d 498 La. 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.
  • Folse v. Fakouri 371 So. 2d 1120 La. 1979
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.
  • Nugent v. U-Haul Co. 368 So. 2d 781 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    and Tarver v. U-Haul Company, Inc., et al., (La.App.
  • Wilson v. Magee 367 So. 2d 314 La. 1979
    Carollo v. Wilson, supra ; Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., supra .
  • LeBlanc v. American Emp. Ins. Co. 364 So. 2d 263 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
    In light of our conclusion that appellant's revocatory action should be sustained, which substantially increases appellees' ability to respond in judgment, does not herein apply.
  • Greene v. Wright 365 So. 2d 551 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
    the Supreme Court said, "since the jury does have, under the law, much discretion in fixing damages, the appropriate procedure for testing whether the jury abused its discretion is to determine whether the award can be supported under the interpretation of the evidence most favorable to the plaintiff w
  • Mora v. American Motors Leasing Corp. 364 So. 2d 1343 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
    They rely on the cases of Schexnayder v. Carpenter, La., , Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., La., , Moss v. Security National Insurance Company, La.App., , and Robinson v. General Motors Corporation, La.App., , to support their claim that a jury may not refuse general damages to plaintiffs with objective injuries.
  • Tarver v. U-Haul Co., Inc. 362 So. 2d 1157 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1978
  • Ulmer v. Baton Rouge General Hospital 361 So. 2d 1238 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
    the Supreme Court expressed the way to ascertain whether the jury had abused its discretion in the following language: "Since the jury does have, under the law, much discretion in fixing damages, the appropriate procedure for testing whether the jury abused its discretion is to determine whether the award c
  • Fowler v. Western Union Tel. Co. 357 So. 2d 1305 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1978
    1976); and cases therein cited.
  • Garden Hill Land Corp. v. Cambre 354 So. 2d 1064 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
  • Demars v. Natchitoches Coca-Cola Bottling Co. 353 So. 2d 433 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1978
    We have carefully examined the record in light of the principles of appellate review of damages recently announced by our Supreme Court in Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., and find the award neither excessive nor inadequate.
  • Moss v. Travelers Indem. Co. 351 So. 2d 290 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1978
    Since the trial judge made no awards, we are not restricted by the rules *294 in Coco v. Winston Industrial, Inc., as to increasing or reducing awards.
  • Lewis v. Bell 356 So. 2d 1033 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    Schexnayder v. Carpenter, La., ; (La.App.
  • Bergeron v. Louisiana Department of Highways 353 So. 2d 469 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    In reversing the jury’s award of damages, we must look for guidance to Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Carollo v. Wilson 353 So. 2d 249 La. 1977
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., supra .
  • Ardoin v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. 350 So. 2d 205 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
    our Supreme Court set forth the procedure for testing whether the jury abused its discretion as follows: "Since the jury does have, under the law, much discretion in fixing damages, the appropriate procedure for testing whether the jury abused its discretion is to determine whether the award can be supported
  • Moss v. Security Nat. Ins. Co. 350 So. 2d 247 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
    In reversing the trial jury, and making an assessment of damages where the trial jury awarded no damages, we must look for guidance to Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Domingue v. Continental Ins. Co. 348 So. 2d 209 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
    3 Cir. 1976), writ issued La., , amended
  • Bevil v. HEATH TIMBER CO., INC. 347 So. 2d 889 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
    v. Carpenter et al., La., handed down May 16, 1977, in a further elaboration of Coco, supra, our Supreme Court stated that since the jury does have, under the law, much discretion in fixing damages, the appropriate procedure for testing whether the jury abused its discretion is to determine whether the award can be