Cited by

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

1552 citing documents.

Buquoi v. Allstate Ins. Co. 556 So. 2d 163 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1990
Davis v. Sewerage and Water Bd. 555 So. 2d 664 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
Fisher v. Dept. of Public Safety 555 So. 2d 626 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
Baker v. City of New Orleans 555 So. 2d 659 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
The standard for appellate review of the amount of a which stated as follows: 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.
McIntyre v. Saunders 554 So. 2d 1371 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Guidry v. Freeman 555 So. 2d 588 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Leckelt v. Eunice Superette, Inc. 555 So. 2d 11 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
Clouatre v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. 557 So. 2d 696 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Morris v. Orleans Parish School Bd. 553 So. 2d 427 La. 1989
Baldwin v. Kuhl 554 So. 2d 193 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
Litton v. Ford Motor Co. 554 So. 2d 99 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
Perschall v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 553 So. 2d 936 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Perniciaro v. Brinch, supra
Bordelon v. Wendy's of New Orleans 553 So. 2d 922 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
Demarest v. Progressive American Ins. Co. 552 So. 2d 1329 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., Bourgeois v. Bill Watson's Investments, Inc., (La.App.
Falgoust v. Richardson Industries, Inc. 552 So. 2d 1348 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
D. Medical expenses (past, present & future) 350,000 E. Loss of enjoyment of life 200,000 F. Loss of future income 125,000 ________ TOTAL $975,000 The inquiry applicable to appellate review of damages is whether on the particular facts of the case the appellate court can conclude, for articulable reasons, that the award constitutes an abuse of the trier of fact's discretion
Matthias v. Brown 551 So. 2d 821 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
Nichols v. Stone Container Corp. 552 So. 2d 688 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
: 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.
Ellis v. Georgia-Pacific Corp. 550 So. 2d 1310 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Comberrel v. Basford 550 So. 2d 1356 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
Day v. South Line Equipment Co. 551 So. 2d 774 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
French Jordan, Inc. v. Oilfield Sales and Services, Inc., (La.App.
Finwall v. Union Oil Co. of California 551 So. 2d 673 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
Meche v. Thibodeaux 550 So. 2d 346 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
Risk v. State 549 So. 2d 1272 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
Touchet v. Guidry 550 So. 2d 308 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
Malmay v. Sentry Ins. Co. 550 So. 2d 366 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
Pitts v. Bailes 551 So. 2d 1363 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
For this reason, which held: "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 `much3 discretion,' La.Civ.C.
Miller v. Ouachita Parish Police Jury 550 So. 2d 904 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
Carroll v. St. Paul Ins. Co. 550 So. 2d 787 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.App.
Williams v. Kushner 549 So. 2d 294 La. 1989
[15] and the cases cited therein.
McCray v. Abraham 550 So. 2d 244 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
Runnels v. Esteves 550 So. 2d 1225 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
St. Claire v. Lewis 550 So. 2d 737 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
Cascio v. Continental Casualty Co. 547 So. 2d 743 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Perniciaro v. Brinch, supra
Lopez v. Chicago Bridge and Iron Co. 546 So. 2d 291 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
Lewis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 546 So. 2d 267 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
Doucet v. B & R Petroleum Services, Inc. 546 So. 2d 626 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Montgomery v. Opelousas General Hosp. 546 So. 2d 621 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
Coco v. Winston *623 Industries, supra ; (La.App.
Fontenot v. Fontenot 546 So. 2d 322 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
Stallion v. Morris 546 So. 2d 563 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Boehm v. French 548 So. 2d 12 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
Berthold v. State Farm Insurance Companies 545 So. 2d 688 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
Jones v. Northbrook Ins. Co. 544 So. 2d 742 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
Trahan v. Thomas 544 So. 2d 695 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
Hollingsworth v. Ponder 543 So. 2d 1147 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Combs v. Hartford Ins. Co. 544 So. 2d 583 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Freeman v. Harold Dickey Transport, Inc., (La.App.
Feyerabend v. State, Dept. of Wildlife & Fisheries 544 So. 2d 577 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Bourne v. Seventh Ward General Hosp. 546 So. 2d 197 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Sorrells v. Eddie Knippers & Associates, Inc. 544 So. 2d 556 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
We recognize that under the appropriate rule of appellate review, i.e., we may only raise the awards to the lowest award that a reasonable fact finder could have made.
Sharp v. Daigre 545 So. 2d 1063 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Jones v. Sampey Bros. General Const., Ltd. 544 So. 2d 1192 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989