Cited by

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

1552 citing documents.

Cazenave v. Pierce 568 So. 2d 1360 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
Nicholas v. Voiron 568 So. 2d 1139 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1990
Andres v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. 568 So. 2d 651 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
Hebert v. National Union Insurance Co. 567 So. 2d 788 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
Rochelle v. STATE, DOTD 570 So. 2d 13 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
Burton v. Berthelot 567 So. 2d 649 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., supra; Harris v. Doucette, supra.
McLaughlin v. Schwegmann Giant Supermarkets, Inc. 567 So. 2d 165 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
Murray v. Sapp 573 So. 2d 495 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
Aaron v. Bolds 566 So. 2d 195 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
Miller v. Mahfouz 563 So. 2d 1223 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
Lejeune v. Cook 563 So. 2d 1218 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
Considering the testimony that by July of 1988, an MRI indicated absolutely no problems with Randolph's jaw, and that Randolph himself testified that his headaches resolved within two to three weeks after the splint was inserted, we cannot believe that the award of $12,500.00
Matthews v. Turner 566 So. 2d 133 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1990
We will now consider the amounts awarded to Mrs. Matthews, bearing in mind the standard of review annunciated by the Supreme Court of Louisiana in Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
Pullen v. Ziegler 562 So. 2d 1093 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
Perniciaro v. Brinch, supra ; (La.
Whatley v. Regional Transit Authority 563 So. 2d 1194 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
Perniciaro v. Brinch, supra, at 395
Clomon v. Monroe City School Bd. 557 So. 2d 1100 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
Fontenot v. Mid-American Casualty Co. 562 So. 2d 39 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
Brossette v. Professional Transportation 562 So. 2d 1018 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
Lucas v. St. Frances Cabrini Hosp. 562 So. 2d 999 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
Young v. Livaccari 561 So. 2d 209 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
as follows: Thus, the initial inquiry must always be directed at whether the trier court’s award for the particular injuries and their effects upon this particular injured person is, a clear abuse of the trier of fact’s “much discretion,” La.Civ.C.
Celestine v. US FIDELITY & GUR. CO. 561 So. 2d 986 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., supra; Harris v. Doucette, supra.
Davis v. Husqvarna Motor 561 So. 2d 847 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
Alexander v. Rivers 560 So. 2d 999 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
Cooks v. Cornin 560 So. 2d 994 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
Williams v. Stevenson 558 So. 2d 1204 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
French Jordan, Inc. v. Oilfield Sales and Services, Inc., (La.App.
Green v. Industrial Helicopters, Inc. 560 So. 2d 684 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
Aisole v. Dean 560 So. 2d 647 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
Starks v. Silton, supra.
Harris v. Schexnaydre 560 So. 2d 55 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
Armstrong v. Pepsi-Cola General Bottlers, Inc. 560 So. 2d 67 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
Robertson v. LaPlace Concrete, Inc. 560 So. 2d 561 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
Winborn v. Howland 560 So. 2d 896 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
Fruge v. Thornhill 560 So. 2d 909 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
Socorro v. Orleans Levee Bd. 561 So. 2d 739 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
McCrory v. New Orleans Police Department 558 So. 2d 1322 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
Llorence v. State, Dept. of Transp. and Dev. 558 So. 2d 320 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
In determining whether a damage award is excessive or inadequate, : Before a trial court award may be questioned as inadequate or excessive, the reviewing court must look first, not to prior awards, but to the individual circumstances of the present case.
LeBlanc v. City of Lafayette 558 So. 2d 259 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
SUCCESSION OF THEROIT v. Southern Pacific Transp. Co. 560 So. 2d 861 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
art. 2324.1, Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., we find no abuse of discretion in the award as a whole.
Jaffarzad v. Jones Truck Lines, Inc. 561 So. 2d 144 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
Coco, supra; Clark v. State Farm Ins.
Rosell v. ESCO 558 So. 2d 1360 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
Burford v. First Nat. Bank in Mansfield 557 So. 2d 1147 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
Slider v. Myers 557 So. 2d 1111 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
Hardy v. Cumis Ins. Co. 558 So. 2d 625 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
Brooks v. City of Baton Rouge 558 So. 2d 1177 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
Daener v. Berwick 556 So. 2d 1353 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
As to the award of $7,500 in general damages, the rule applicable to review of such damages is that unless the appellate court, after review of the entire record, can give articulable reasons for concluding that the trier of fact abused its much discretion in fixing the award, that award should not be disturbed
Bergez v. Simmons 557 So. 2d 444 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
for the proposition that “a reviewing court must look first, not to prior awards, but to the individual circumstances of the present case.” Although perhaps higher than the amount we would award, applying the standard of review required by Reck v. Stevens, supra, we cannot say the jury erred in making the a
Lewis v. St. Frances Cabrini Hospital 556 So. 2d 970 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
Robichaux v. Randolph 555 So. 2d 581 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
Turner v. Smith 556 So. 2d 983 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
Nastasi v. Fejka 556 So. 2d 1307 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1990
Smith v. City of New Orleans 557 So. 2d 377 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
Orrill v. Ram Rod Trucking 557 So. 2d 384 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
We find that, though the award might be generous, we cannot articulate any abuse of the trial court’s