Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Carollo v. Wilson, 353 So. 2d 249.

108 citing documents.

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.
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.
Placide v. Jay 378 So. 2d 473 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
the court stated: “[3,4] The courts of appeal have a constitutional duty to review the law and facts and thereafter render a judgment on quantum based on the merits, determining whether the jury has abused its “much discretion” that the law accords it in awarding damages.
Davis v. New Orleans Public Belt RR 375 So. 2d 395 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1979
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.
Wilson v. Magee 367 So. 2d 314 La. 1979
art. 5, § 10(B); La.Civil Code art. 1934(3); Temple v. Liberty Mut.
Fowler v. Western Union Tel. Co. 357 So. 2d 1305 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1978
[3] , of the docket of the Supreme Court of Louisiana.