DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

1552 citing documents.

  • Brown v. Lykes Bros. SS Co., Inc. 422 So. 2d 213 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
    We note this case was decided in 1974, which clarified the appellate standard of review of damage awards.
  • Briscoe v. Stewart 423 So. 2d 1198 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Keith v. Charles Clotworthy Co. 421 So. 2d 1212 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
  • Britsch v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. 422 So. 2d 255 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
  • Landry v. Aetna Insurance Co. 422 So. 2d 1287 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
  • Turner v. Kentie 422 So. 2d 493 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    : “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.
  • Lescale v. Louisiana Coca-Cola Bottling Co. 422 So. 2d 241 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
  • Causey v. Monroe 421 So. 2d 1151 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
  • Lindstrom v. Arnold 421 So. 2d 1178 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
  • LeBlanc v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc. 420 So. 2d 1320 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
    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 *1322 of the present case.
  • Owens v. Hartford Insurance Co. 420 So. 2d 1193 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    Miller v. Thomas, 258 La.
  • Mart v. Schlumberger Ltd. 422 So. 2d 1205 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Sellers v. Breaux 422 So. 2d 1231 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
  • Robinson v. FW Woolworth Co. 420 So. 2d 737 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
  • Monnier v. Boutte 420 So. 2d 725 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    It is never appropriate for a Court of Appeal, having found that the trial court has abused its discretion, simply to decide what it considers an appropriate award on the basis of the evidence.” “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.” This court finds that the lowest amount reasonably within its discretion to award is $40,000.00.
  • Chauvin v. Gammon Enterprises, Inc. 420 So. 2d 752 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    which states: “The use of such a scale of prior awards, made for merely generically similar medical injuries, has been expressly and repeatedly disapproved by Gaspard [v. LeMaire, 245 La.
  • Greer v. Ouachita Coca-Cola Bottling Co. 420 So. 2d 540 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
  • Sweeney v. State Farm Mutual Insurance 419 So. 2d 985 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    art. 1934, Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., and other cases.
  • Ellis v. MFA Mut. Ins. Co. 419 So. 2d 92 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
  • Planellas v. Doty 418 So. 2d 738 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    -500 (La.1979), states in regard to appellate review of such an award: “ ‘The primary question before the appellate court, then, is whether the judge or the jury in fixing the amount of the award has abused its great discretion vested in them by law.
  • Nobile v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. 419 So. 2d 35 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
  • Odendahl v. Wild 418 So. 2d 36 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
  • Davis v. General Accident Insurance Co. 419 So. 2d 1260 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1982
    Only after making the finding that the record supports the fact that the lower court abused its discretion can the Appellate Court disturb the award.” the Supreme 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 individual circumstances of the present case.
  • Burris v. Insured Lloyds 417 So. 2d 511 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
    and the cases cited therein.
  • Richard v. Trahan 417 So. 2d 103 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    1967); “We do reemphasize, 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.” wherein it 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.Civ.C.
  • Buras v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. 417 So. 2d 141 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
  • Purcell v. State Farm Ins. Co. 417 So. 2d 16 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
  • Horstmann v. Drake 420 So. 2d 473 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
    The Louisiana Supreme Court has set the appropriate standards for appellate review of a (La.
  • Legrone v. New Orleans Public Service 415 So. 2d 997 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
  • Bradley v. Tripkovich 415 So. 2d 999 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
  • Mills v. Ganucheau 416 So. 2d 361 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
  • Merrell v. State, Through Dept. of Transp. 415 So. 2d 660 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
    wherein it 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.Civ.C.
  • Stewart v. Hanover Ins. Co. 416 So. 2d 286 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Alleman v. State, Dept. of Highways 416 So. 2d 272 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
    These guidelines have been followed: Bantin v. Dept. of Transp.
  • Durrett v. State 416 So. 2d 562 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    the court of appeal must give an articulated analysis of the facts and if after such analysis an abuse of discretion is disclosed, the award may be adjusted to an appropriate amount.
  • Palermo v. Allstate Ins. Co. 415 So. 2d 437 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    Hence, and Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., we reduce the award to plaintiffs Sardo and Mary Palermo, as beneficiaries of the Estate of Glinda Steib, to the sum of $15,000 for the loss of each child, or a total of $30,000.
  • Bickford v. Reliance Insurance Companies 415 So. 2d 405 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
  • Rodrigue v. Matherne 416 So. 2d 577 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
  • Bethea v. La. Dept. of Transp. & Development 415 So. 2d 535 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Oppenheim v. Murray Henderson Undertaking Company, Inc. 414 So. 2d 868 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
  • Lee v. Louisiana Transit Co. 414 So. 2d 838 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1982
  • Grigsby v. Schwegmann Bros. Giant Super Markets, Inc. 417 So. 2d 388 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    Also, before changing the jury’s award, we must first find there was a clear abuse of their “much discretion” in fixing an award.
  • Minton v. Saint Bernard Parish School Board 416 So. 2d 167 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    set forth explicit guidelines to be used by appellate courts in determining whether the trial judge abused the great discretion allowed him.
  • Wright v. Ouachita Coca-Cola Bottling Co. 415 So. 2d 309 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Badgett v. Keith 415 So. 2d 337 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    La.Civil Code Art. 1934(3)
  • Alphonso v. CHARITY HOSP. OF LOUISIANA, ETC. 413 So. 2d 982 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
  • Thomas v. State Farm Insurance 413 So. 2d 293 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., LSA-C.C.
  • Tucker v. Howes 413 So. 2d 585 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
  • Bullard v. STATE, DEPT. OF TRANSP., ETC. 413 So. 2d 606 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    Considering the guidelines for appellate review of damage awards, (La.
  • Lockett v. Home Insurance Co. 413 So. 2d 230 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    (1979), in the absence of an initial determination that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding general damages, the reviewing court should not disturb the trier’s award.