Cited by

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

1552 citing documents.

Hunt v. Bd. of Sup'rs of La. State Univ. 522 So. 2d 1144 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
Hardin v. Munchies Food Store 521 So. 2d 1200 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
Miller v. East Baton Rouge Parish Sheriff's Department 522 So. 2d 578 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
Walls v. Henley 520 So. 2d 1295 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
Ernst v. Bassett 521 So. 2d 414 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
State, Department of Transportation & Development v. Bernard 524 So. 2d 808 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
Ammons v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. 525 So. 2d 60 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
Brannan v. Wyeth Laboratories, Inc. 516 So. 2d 157 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
Security Home Mortg. Corp. v. Bogues 519 So. 2d 307 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
McGraw v. Orleans Parish School Bd. 519 So. 2d 847 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
Carlsen v. Mehaffey & Daigle, Inc. 519 So. 2d 1187 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
and find no articulable reasons to conclude that this award was an abuse of the trial court’s discretion.
Teague v. Barnes 519 So. 2d 817 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
Istre v. ABC Ins. Co. 517 So. 2d 1225 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
Vanzant v. New Orleans Public Service 517 So. 2d 1252 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
Thompson v. Colony Ins. Co. 520 So. 2d 1158 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
Edmonds, 508 So.2d at 213 .
Karam v. DeSoto 520 So. 2d 1032 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
: "Under this rule the amount of damages assessed by the judge or jury should not be disturbed unless the appellate court's examination of the facts reveals a clear abuse of the discretion vested in the trial court."
Swan v. Vernon Mill. Co. 517 So. 2d 1161 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
Soulier v. Highlands Insurance Co. 517 So. 2d 355 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
“Finally, the Court awards Mrs. Soulier $25,000.00 for loss of consortium due to the fact that this accident had a detrimental effect on her marriage.” LAW In viewing damage awards, we must be ever mindful of our standard of review, 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.
Parker v. Day 516 So. 2d 1211 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
McGee v. Miears 516 So. 2d 1241 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
McGrew v. Jordan 516 So. 2d 1246 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
Gines v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. 516 So. 2d 1231 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
Schwamb v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. 516 So. 2d 452 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
Reck v. Stevens, *467 -501 (La.1979); Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc.
Siemann v. Teston 517 So. 2d 242 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
Kropog v. Carlson 517 So. 2d 342 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
Todd v. LeBlanc 520 So. 2d 833 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
Clark v. State Farm Ins. Co. 520 So. 2d 860 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
Gaspard *863 v. Lemaire, 245 La.
Tide Craft, Inc. v. Red Ball Oxygen Co. 514 So. 2d 664 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
These proven special damages, when compared to the total award, persuade us that the jury did not abuse its great discretion in fixing lost profits, or act unreasonably in fixing the actual value to Tide Craft of the destroyed equipment which had no fair market value, Emerson, supra.
Cashio v. DEPT. OF TRANSP. & DEVELOPMENT 518 So. 2d 1063 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
Stein v. Langer 515 So. 2d 507 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
Bergeron v. Houma Hosp. Corp. 514 So. 2d 1192 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
Irving v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 517 So. 2d 868 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
Anderson v. Rabb, 484 So.
Cole v. City of West Lake 517 So. 2d 928 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
Higginbotham v. Ouachita Parish Police Jury 513 So. 2d 537 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.App.
Partner v. Anderson 513 So. 2d 471 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
Johnson v. Pepperman 512 So. 2d 1225 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1987
Andrews v. Mosley Well Service 514 So. 2d 491 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
Further, the initial inquiry must always be directed to whether the award for the particular injuries and their effects upon this particular injured person is a clear abuse of the jury's much discretion.
Myres v. Nunsett 511 So. 2d 1287 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
England v. S & M FOODS, INC. 511 So. 2d 1313 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
Melder v. State, Through Dept. of Highways 512 So. 2d 546 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
art. 1934(3); Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., La.1976)."
Harper v. Coleman Chrysler-Plymouth-Dodge, Inc. 510 So. 2d 1366 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
Chinigo v. Geismar Marine, Inc. 512 So. 2d 487 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
Joseph v. Ford Motor Co. 509 So. 2d 1 La. 1987
In determining damages and attorney's fees, and did not err in reducing Joseph's awards to the highest reasonable amount within the jury's discretion.
Rodgers v. National Dealer Services, Inc. 508 So. 2d 1007 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
Peacock's, Inc. v. Shreveport Alarm Co. 510 So. 2d 387 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
Edmonds v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co. 508 So. 2d 211 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
the Supreme Court stated: "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.
Miller v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. 510 So. 2d 695 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
Cheramie v. Brunet 510 So. 2d 700 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
Recard v. Trinity Universal Ins. Co. 503 So. 2d 519 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
Succession of Wilson v. Wilson 509 So. 2d 714 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
” In the instant case, Royster filed suit against Willie and Emma Wilson, her brother and sister-in-law, and against the Majors to have cancelled the sales of an undivided interest in certain property which her father, Woodrow Wilson, Sr. had sold just one month prior to his death on April 27, 1981.