Cited by

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

1552 citing documents.

Turner v. Krauss Co., Ltd. 543 So. 2d 563 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
Rickerson v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. 543 So. 2d 519 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Aguillard v. Frank 542 So. 2d 834 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
(Citations and footnotes omitted) (La.
Cormier v. Habetz 542 So. 2d 814 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
Landy on Behalf of Landy v. Smith 542 So. 2d 731 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
Lewis v. State 546 So. 2d 484 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Callender v. Delchamps, Inc. 542 So. 2d 140 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Henry v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. 542 So. 2d 102 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
The standard usually used for appellate review of a 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.
Bridevaux v. Marchand 543 So. 2d 930 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Reese v. Winn-Dixie of Louisiana, Inc. 542 So. 2d 68 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
[1] Under the particular circumstances present in this case, we do not consider that our appellate review is subject to the constraints applicable in the ordinary review of quantum awards as set forth in Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., and Reck v. Stevens
Weber v. Buccola-McKenzie, Inc. 541 So. 2d 315 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
Schexnaider v. State Farm Insurance 541 So. 2d 223 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Naman v. Schmidt 541 So. 2d 265 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
*268 the initial inquiry in determining whether a trial court award is either excessive or inadequate is whether the trier of fact abused its much discretion in setting the award.
Bergeron v. K-Mart Corp. 540 So. 2d 406 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
nses $ 26,000 ________ b) Past and future physical pain and suffering $ 25,000 ________ c) Past and future mental pain and anguish $ 10,000 ________ d) Past and future disability and disfigurement $ 25,000 ________ e) Past and future loss of wages $ 40,000 ________ TOTAL $126,000 -------- The proper standard for appellate review of a 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
Snell v. United Parcel Services, Inc. 543 So. 2d 52 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Terry Wisner v. Illinois Central Gulf Railroad, et al, (La.App.
Vaccaro v. Sports & Imports, Inc. 539 So. 2d 989 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
Harris v. Doucette 539 So. 2d 997 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
Guitreau v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 540 So. 2d 1097 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Thomas v. Hartford Ins. Co. 540 So. 2d 1068 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Lee v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co. 540 So. 2d 1083 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Coco v. Winston Industries, supra ; (La.App.
Dowe v. Grady 540 So. 2d 1040 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
Purvis v. American Motors Corp. 538 So. 2d 1015 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
the court stated: 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.
Lemire v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. 538 So. 2d 1151 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
Arruebarrena v. Boh Bros. Const. Co. 539 So. 2d 78 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
Duplessis v. Inman 539 So. 2d 880 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Savoy v. Martiny Warehouse, Inc. 539 So. 2d 884 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Pastorello v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 538 So. 2d 749 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Barzare v. Transit Casualty Co. 539 So. 2d 708 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Defils v. Protective Casualty Insurance Co. 539 So. 2d 724 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Williams v. Exxon Corp. 541 So. 2d 910 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Ard v. Samedan Oil Corporation, supra ; Carollo v. Wilson, supra ; Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., supra ; Sexton v. Louisiana Vacuum Services, Inc., supra .
Archie v. BD. OF SUP'RS OF LA. STATE UNIV. 543 So. 2d 1348 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Ard v. Samedan Oil Corporation, supra ; Carollo v. Wilson, supra ; Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., Sexton v. Louisiana Vacuum Services, Inc., supra .
Morris v. Yogi Bear's Jellystone Park Camp Resort 539 So. 2d 70 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
Carpenter v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co. 537 So. 2d 1283 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
Finkelstein v. Pena 538 So. 2d 1022 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Roger v. Cancienne 538 So. 2d 670 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
Levie v. Orleans Parish School Bd. 537 So. 2d 351 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
Sobol v. State Farm Mutual Insurance 537 So. 2d 375 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
Wisner v. Illinois Cent. Gulf RR 537 So. 2d 740 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
Soudelier v. Miller 537 So. 2d 296 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
Valentine v. Wells 540 So. 2d 344 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
The proper standard for appellate review of a 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.
Trahan v. State, Dept. of Transp. & Dev. 536 So. 2d 1269 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., supra.
Vice v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 535 So. 2d 1275 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Guidry 536 So. 2d 716 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
The court stated, at pages 552 and 553, that: “ upon appellate review we may not disturb an award of general damages made at the trial court level without a finding of clear abuse of discretion and then only after abuse is shown through an articulated analysis and for articulated reasons.
Carter v. City of Houma 536 So. 2d 573 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
: 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.
Peterson v. Western World Ins. Co. 536 So. 2d 639 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
Thompson v. PetroUnited Terminals, Inc. 536 So. 2d 504 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
Bernard v. Casualty Reciprocal Exchange 534 So. 2d 1348 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
Only after making the finding that the record supports that the lower court abused its much discretion can the appellate court disturb the award, and then only to the extent of lowering it (or raising it) to the highest (or lowest) point which is reasonably within the discretion afforded th
Ardoin v. Dixieland Foods, Inc. 534 So. 2d 107 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
Fredericks v. Louisiana Farm Bureau 534 So. 2d 139 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
Mims v. Reliance Ins. Co. 535 So. 2d 1085 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988