Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Reck v. Stevens, 373 So. 2d 498.

1552 citing documents.

Jarreau v. Hirschey 650 So. 2d 1189 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Cornish v. STATE, DEPT. OF TRANSP. AND DEVELOP. & DEV. 647 So. 2d 1170 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
In the event that this court finds that the awards by both factfinders as to any particular element of damages are abusively high or abusively low, this court is free to evaluate the facts de novo
Maeder v. Williams 652 So. 2d 1005 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
Sebastien v. McKay 649 So. 2d 711 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
Bush v. Arrow International 646 So. 2d 1173 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Alleman v. Brownie Drilling Co. 647 So. 2d 371 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
Thibodeaux v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co. 647 So. 2d 351 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Stevens v. Hartford Ins. Co. of Midwest 646 So. 2d 981 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
Broussard v. Meaux 649 So. 2d 661 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
Fitch v. Vintage Petroleum, Inc. 652 So. 2d 998 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
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.
Faulkner v. STATE, DEPT. OF TRANSP. & DEV. 645 So. 2d 268 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
Watterson v. Mallard Bay Drilling, Inc. 649 So. 2d 431 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
White v. STATE, DEPT. OF PUBLIC SAFETY & CORRECTIONS 644 So. 2d 684 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
James v. Webb 643 So. 2d 424 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
Alphonse v. Omni Hotels Management Corp. 643 So. 2d 836 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
Anderson v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc.
Rudd v. Atlas Processing Refinery 644 So. 2d 402 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
Stephens v. Town of Jonesboro 642 So. 2d 274 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
Jackson v. A.L. & W. Moore, (La.App.
Edwards v. K & B, INC. 641 So. 2d 1040 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
Caldwell v. Smith 641 So. 2d 1011 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
McCann v. ABC Ins. Co. 640 So. 2d 865 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
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.
Alonzo v. Silverman & Marks Plumbing Co. 640 So. 2d 876 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
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.
Gilchrist v. Ozone Spring Water Co. 639 So. 2d 489 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
Nevertheless, the theme that emerges from earlier jurisprudence, -1261 (La.1993), certiorari denied ___ U.S. ___, 114 S.Ct.
Thompson v. Louisiana Dept. of Transp. 639 So. 2d 864 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
DeRouen v. Audirsch 639 So. 2d 476 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
Orillion v. Carter 639 So. 2d 461 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Sledge v. Continental Cas. Co. 639 So. 2d 805 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
Williams v. General Motors Corp. 639 So. 2d 275 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
Dupre v. Exxon Pipeline Co. 638 So. 2d 1118 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
The Supreme Court, -1261 (La.1993) reiterated the standard of review for general damage award as follows: (La.
Makin v. Continental Insurance Co. 638 So. 2d 460 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
In that case at 1260-61, the Supreme Court restated the standard for review of general damages as follows: In Reck [v. Stevens, ], this court disapproved the appellate court’s simply reviewing the medical evidence and then concluding that the award for those injuries was excessive, without taking into consideration the particular effect on the particular plaintiff.
Fleming v. Smith 638 So. 2d 467 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1994
Myers v. Burger King Corp. 638 So. 2d 369 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
White v. Longanecker 637 So. 2d 1213 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Cheramie v. Horst 637 So. 2d 720 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Rochel v. Terrebonne Parish School Bd. 637 So. 2d 753 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Smith v. LOUISIANA HEALTH & HUMAN RES. 637 So. 2d 1177 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
And, "[i]t is only after articulated analysis of the facts discloses an abuse of discretion, that the award may on appellate review by considered either excessive or insufficient,"
Dixon v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc. 638 So. 2d 306 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
Most recently, the supreme court described the appellate function in reviewing damages as follows: (La.
Breaux v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 635 So. 2d 667 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
Adams v. Lammon 635 So. 2d 373 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
1059 , 127 L.Ed.2d 379 (1994); (La.
Langlinais v. Figueroa 636 So. 2d 983 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
: this Court commented on appellate review of general damage awards and on the “much discretion” in fixing damages accorded to trial courts by La.Civ.Code art. 1934(3) (1870).
Simpson v. State Through DOTD 636 So. 2d 608 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
through Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., have been fraught with uncertainty.
Blanchard v. Means Industries, Inc. 635 So. 2d 288 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1994
Ziegel v. South Central Bell 635 So. 2d 314 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1994
Russell ex rel. Wunstell v. Kossover 634 So. 2d 72 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
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.
Clement v. Griffin 634 So. 2d 412 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
Hayes v. Richard 634 So. 2d 1384 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
Davis v. Kreutzer 633 So. 2d 796 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
White v. Touro Infirmary 633 So. 2d 755 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
Contrary to intervenor's assertion, we have found no consequential errors on the part of the trial court which would necessitate an independent review of quantum by us. Therefore, under which the initial inquiry is whether the trial court's award for the particular injuries and their effects upon this particular injured person is *761 a clear abuse of the trier of fact's "much discretion."
Vicknair v. Dimitryadis 640 So. 2d 275 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
Ledet v. Burgess 632 So. 2d 1185 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Fletcher v. Langley 631 So. 2d 693 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994