Cited by

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

1552 citing documents.

Fritscher v. Chateau Golf & Country Club 453 So. 2d 964 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1984
Ward v. La. & Ark. Ry. Co. 451 So. 2d 597 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
Harrell v. Empire Fire and Marine Ins. Co. 449 So. 2d 1177 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
Ed Bulliard Co., Inc. v. FORETICH-ZIMMER CONST. CO. 451 So. 2d 29 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
LeRay v. St. Paul Fire and Marine 444 So. 2d 1252 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
Rutherford v. Jenkins 449 So. 2d 701 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
where the court stated: “Before a court of appeal can disturb an award made by a' trial court, the record must clearly reveal that the trier of fact abused its discretion in making its award.” At page 500.
McKinley v. Bekins Moving & Storage Co. 449 So. 2d 705 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1984
the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case compel us to conclude that there was no clear abuse of discretion in the award of damages.
Baldwin v. Schwegmann Giant Super Markets 449 So. 2d 167 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
Quave v. Bardwell 449 So. 2d 81 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
Brown v. Morgan 449 So. 2d 606 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
art. 1934(3); Dunaway v. Rester Refrigeration Service, Inc., (La.App.
Burgess v. City of Shreveport 448 So. 2d 861 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., supra; Winterrowd v. The Travelers Ind.
Bennett v. Tusa 447 So. 2d 72 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
In reviewing quantum, : 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 cir *74 cumstances of the present case.
Lang v. Prince 447 So. 2d 1112 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
Jones v. Soileau 448 So. 2d 1268 La. 1984
Jenkins v. Schwegmann's Bros. Giant Super Markets, Inc. 445 So. 2d 1326 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
Concerning appellate review of awards of damages, : 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.
Ciuffi v. Wilson 445 So. 2d 1320 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
1st Cir.1983); and Bolton v. MFA Mut.
Roque v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 445 So. 2d 506 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
We may not substitute our subjective belief as to the appropriate damages due; rather the finding below is to be honored in the absence of a “clear abuse of discretion.” Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.App.
Benson v. Seagraves 445 So. 2d 187 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
Watters v. City of Bastrop 445 So. 2d 73 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
Burnham v. Frey-Shoemaker-Colbert-Brodnax 445 So. 2d 477 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., supra ; (La.App.
Simmons v. Whittington 444 So. 2d 1357 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
Palmer v. Stokes 444 So. 2d 213 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
we conclude the lowest amount the trial court could have reasonably awarded Mrs. Palmer for general damages is $20,000.00.
Farnsworth v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. 442 So. 2d 1340 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
Cummings v. Nixon 442 So. 2d 1291 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
Only after such determination of abuse has been reached, is a resort to prior awards appropriate under Coco for purposes of then determining what would be an appropriate award for the present case.”
Boyce v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. 442 So. 2d 808 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
Thibodaux v. Acme Truck Lines, Inc. 443 So. 2d 716 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1983
Civil Code art. 1934(3); -501 (La.1979)
Wiggins v. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. 441 So. 2d 803 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
Ross v. Noble 442 So. 2d 1180 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
McSweeney v. Dept. of Transp. & Development 442 So. 2d 659 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
Davis v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 441 So. 2d 18 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
Arena v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc. 441 So. 2d 73 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
See, Miller v. Thomas, 258 La.
Jenkins v. Jenkins 439 So. 2d 504 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
The initial inquiry is directed at whether the trial 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.”
Garrick v. Washington Parish 440 So. 2d 787 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
Johnson v. Folse 438 So. 2d 1137 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
Coleman v. Ballanco 439 So. 2d 469 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
Jones v. Winston 437 So. 2d 889 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
Garsee v. WESTERN CAS. & SUR. CO., INC. 437 So. 2d 933 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
Greer v. State, Department of Transportation & Development 437 So. 2d 1170 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
Langston v. Marsalis 436 So. 2d 735 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
Weeden Engineering Corp. v. Hale 435 So. 2d 1158 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
Jeanmard v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. 436 So. 2d 577 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
QUANTUM As we review the facts to determine whether the trial court’s which stated as follows: “We do re-emphasize, however, that before a Court of Appeal can disturb an award made by a trial court that the record must clearly reveal that the trier of fact abused its discretion in making its award.
Spears v. Aguilar 436 So. 2d 672 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
Larson v. Huskey 440 So. 2d 769 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
"Only after such determination of abuse has been reached is a resort to prior awards appropriate under Coco for purposes of then determining what would be an appropriate award for the present case."
Davenport v. Nixon 434 So. 2d 1203 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
Gaspard v. LeMaire, 245 La.
Followed Lee v. United States Fidelity & Guar. Co. 433 So. 2d 903 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
to determine if the trial court's award of damages was a clear abuse of discretion.
Curry on Behalf of Curry v. Allstate Ins. Co. 435 So. 2d 1030 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
In assessing general damages where the jury has erroneously awarded none, this court and the Third Circuit have uniformly held that the appellate court [under the guidelines of Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., ] must award the lowest amount that the jury reasonably could have determined in its discretion.
Sons v. Commercial Union Assur. Companies 433 So. 2d 842 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
Rivet v. State, Through Dept. of Transp. 434 So. 2d 436 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
Code Art. 1934(3); Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
Pitre v. Aetna Life and Cas. Co. 434 So. 2d 191 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
Johnson v. Dufrene 433 So. 2d 1109 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
Moreover, the scope of our inquiry is narrowly focused upon the individual plaintiff to determine whether he has received just compensation for his injuries in light of his particular circumstances, bearing in mind that the object of reparation is to return plaintiff to the condition which he enjoyed prior to the act which caused his damage.