Cited by

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

1552 citing documents.

Tezeno v. Hashim 185 So. 3d 180 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
Cone v. National Emergency Servs., Inc., 99-0934 (La.10/29/99)
Miller v. Thibeaux 184 So. 3d 856 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
Cone v. National Emergency Serv., Inc., 99-0934 (La.10/29/99)
Kyle Daigle v. Brandon Picou La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
Co., (the fact finder’s discretion in awarding general damages is vast and should rarely be disturbed); Reck v. Stevens[,]
Patrick Jeansonne v. City of Marksville La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
Inc., 99–0934 (La.10/29/99)
Jeansonne v. City of Marksville 180 So. 3d 608 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
Gone v. National Emergency Serv., Inc., 99-0934 (La.10/29/99)
Patricia Parker v. Town of Woodworth La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
Inc., 99–0934 (La.10/29/99)
Parker v. Town of Woodworth 160 So. 3d 1113 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
Inc., 99-0934 (La.10/29/99)
Williams v. Walgreen Louisiana Co. 168 So. 3d 812 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
Inc., 99-0934 (La.10/29/99)
Ober v. Champagne 166 So. 3d 254 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
In Reck [v. Stevens, ] this court disapproved of 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 of the particular injuries on the particular plaintiff.
Williams v. Mathieu 155 So. 3d 54 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Miller v. LAMMICO, 07-1352, p. 28 (La.1/16/08), ( Anderson v. New Orleans Pub.
Maldonado v. Kiewit Louisiana Co. 152 So. 3d 909 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
1st Cir.11/9/01), , writ denied, 2002-0635 (La.5/10/02)
Purvis v. Grant Parish School Board 144 So. 3d 922 La. 2014
Inc., 99-0934 (La.10/29/99), ; (La.
Mary Phyllis Soileau v. Smith True Value and Rental La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
And, “[i]t is only after articulated analysis of the facts discloses an abuse of discretion, that the award may on appellate review be considered either excessive or insufficient,”
Soileau v. Smith True Value & Rental 130 So. 3d 1060 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
And, “[i]t is only after articulated analysis of the facts discloses an abuse of discretion, that the award may on appellate review be considered either excessive or insufficient,”
Lucie C. Ford v. Bituminous Insurance Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
Inc., 99-0934 (La.10/29/99)
Ford v. Bituminous Insurance Co. 115 So. 3d 1253 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
Inc., 99-0934 (La.10/29/99)
Betty Issac v. Remington College La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
Co., (the fact finder’s discretion in awarding general damages is vast and should rarely be disturbed); Reck v. Stevens[,]
Isaac v. Remington College 114 So. 3d 636 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
Co., (the fact finder’s discretion in awarding general damages is vast and should rarely be disturbed); Reck v. Stevens [,]
Shenan Smith Purvis v. Grant Parish School Board La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
Inc., 99-0934 (La.10/29/99)
Purvis v. Grant Parish School Board 157 So. 3d 682 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
Inc., 99-0934 (La.10/29/99)
Nina Skinner v. State of Louisiana, Dotd La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
Marshall v. Air Liquide-Big Three, Inc. 107 So. 3d 13 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
quoting Gaspard v. LeMaire, 245 La.
Moore v. Stewart 94 So. 3d 1018 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
where the supreme court held that: A general review of the jurisprudence indicates that our courts balance many factors in assessing damages in assault and battery cases.
Buckheister v. United States Environmental Services, L.L.C. 97 So. 3d 414 La. 2012
Barrios v. Safeway Insurance Co. 97 So. 3d 1019 La. 2012
Sonja Dauzat Deligans, Et Ux. v. Ace American Insurance Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
Deligans v. Ace American Insurance 86 So. 3d 109 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Adrienne Stelly v. Zurich American Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
Inc., 99-0934 (La.10/29/99), 3
Stelly v. Zurich American Ins. Co. 83 So. 3d 1225 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Inc., 99-0934 (La.10/29/99)
Constance Cormier v. Republic Insurance Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
Cormier v. Republic Insurance Co. 118 So. 3d 16 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Powell v. Chabanais Concrete Pumping, Inc. 82 So. 3d 548 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
Eunice M. Guidry v. Allstate Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
Guidry v. Allstate Insurance Co. 83 So. 3d 91 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
George McCarthy v. Entergy Gulf States, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
Co., (the fact finder‘s discretion in awarding general damages is vast and should rarely be disturbed)
McCarthy v. Entergy Gulf States, Inc. 82 So. 3d 336 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
Co., (the fact finder’s discretion in awarding general damages is vast and should rarely be disturbed)
Richard Le v. Nitetown, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
the supreme court rejected the approach of reviewing general damage awards by simply reviewing medical evidence and determining that the trial court abused its discretion.
Deroche v. Latour 71 So. 3d 959 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
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.
Arlene Chambers v. Village of Moreauville La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
Coco, Clark v. State Farm Ins.
Chambers v. Village of Moreauville 60 So. 3d 125 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
Coco, ; Clark v. State Farm Ins.
Terrance D. Andrus v. Accc Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
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).
Mille S. McFadden v. Import One, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
McFadden v. Import One, Inc. 56 So. 3d 1212 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
August F. Tjon v. Dr. Steve Fitzgerald La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
Mixter v. Wilson 54 So. 3d 1164 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2010
Miriam H. Dyess v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
that the role of the appellate court is not to fix an award that it deems appropriate to the case, but rather to determine whether, based on the effect of the particular injuries on the particular plaintiff in the particular circumstances in which plaintiff finds himself, the award is
Howard v. Union Carbide Corp. 50 So. 3d 1251 La. 2010
Inc., 99-0934 (La.10/29/99)
Patricia Case and Patrick Case v. Shelter Insurance Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
And, “[i]t is only after articulated analysis of the facts discloses an abuse of discretion, that the award may on appellate review be considered either excessive or insufficient,”
Case v. Shelter Insurance Co. 48 So. 3d 1196 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
And, “[i]t is only after articulated analysis of the facts discloses an abuse of discretion, that the award may on appellate review be considered either excessive or insufficient,”
Barbara Raymond v. Government Employees Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010