Cited by

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

1552 citing documents.

Faulk v. Cagle Supply, Inc. 412 So. 2d 1020 La. 1982
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., Mil ler v. Thomas, 258 La.
Copes v. Copeland Bldg. Supply, Inc. 415 So. 2d 264 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
Bialy v. STATE, THROUGH DEPT. OF TRANSP. AND DEV. 414 So. 2d 1273 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
Smith v. Lumbermen's Mut. Cas. Co. 414 So. 2d 1281 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
art. 1934(3); Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
Chesson v. American Hardware Mut. Ins. Co. 412 So. 2d 186 La. Ct. App. 3d 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....
Faulk v. Schlumberger Well Services 412 So. 2d 162 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
Dunn v. Redman Homes, Inc. 411 So. 2d 722 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
Higdon v. Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc. 412 So. 2d 720 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
and the cases cited therein.
Young v. South Central Bell Tel. Co. 412 So. 2d 147 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
Dollacker v. Schimek 411 So. 2d 643 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
we have articulated why this particular victim, with her particular injury and resultant surgical history, the medical certainty that pain and difficulty will follow during her lifetime, plus the residual scar: all of these factors cause us to evaluate plaintiff's past and future pain and suffering, permanen
Covington v. Department of Transportation & Development 411 So. 2d 660 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
First National Bank of Commerce v. Boutall 411 So. 2d 1193 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1982
Brouillette v. Ward 412 So. 2d 138 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
at p. 502: “Now, it is well established in our law that a Defendant takes his victim as he finds him in cases where a pre-existing condition is present, the Defendant is re *140 sponsible for damages — for the consequences of his act although the damage so caused is greater because of a prior condition of th
Pincus v. Pumilia 412 So. 2d 151 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
: the inquiry must be directed at whether the trial court's award for the particular injuries and their effects upon the particular person is a clear abuse of the trier of fact's broad discretion.
Smith v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation & Development 412 So. 2d 685 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., Carollo, supra.
Black v. Ebasco Services, Inc. 411 So. 2d 1159 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
the Louisiana Supreme Court set out the standard to be followed by appellate courts in reviewing trial court damage awards.
Smith v. STATE, THROUGH DEPT. OF TRANSP., ETC. 412 So. 2d 685 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., Carollo, supra .
Thames v. Zerangue 411 So. 2d 17 La. 1982
this rule was held applicable to a plaintiff who had a history of emotional problems in the following passage: "Unquestionably, the severity and persistence of the subjective symptoms (headaches, dizziness, disorientation) in part resulted because of an underlying (but until-then controlled) emotional
Lawrence v. Grant Parish School Bd. 409 So. 2d 1316 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
Johnson v. Doe 410 So. 2d 365 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
Makas v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. 410 So. 2d 351 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
Jones v. MFA Mut. Ins. Co. 410 So. 2d 1190 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
Ingram v. Reliable Finance Co., Inc. 410 So. 2d 768 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
Noel v. Demouchette 410 So. 2d 1291 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
established the test to be followed in order to alter the trial court’s award of general damages.
Gonzalez v. Lockette 410 So. 2d 265 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
CoCo v. Winston Industries, Inc.
Wetzka v. Big Three Industries, Inc. 409 So. 2d 393 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
Franco v. Kar Products, Inc. 409 So. 2d 1238 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Johnson v. Allstate Insurance Co. 410 So. 2d 777 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Plaintiff-appellee argues that the amount awarded is not clearly erroneous, (La.App.
Coupel v. McLean 409 So. 2d 685 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
Fenetz v. Stine 407 So. 2d 1381 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.App.
Stewart v. Vidrine 408 So. 2d 413 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
Saucier v. John-Clai Co. 408 So. 2d 27 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
Woods v. Ratliff 407 So. 2d 1375 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
Darbonne v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 408 So. 2d 300 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
Parish v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. 408 So. 2d 17 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
Joseph v. Albarado 407 So. 2d 1277 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
Wattigney v. Government Employees Insurance Co. 407 So. 2d 1261 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
For us to reduce the amount of the award would simply constitute the substitution of our opinion for that of the trial judge and would be in violation of the principles set *1265 out in the cases of Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
Kling v. Collins 407 So. 2d 478 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
Yoder v. Schwegmann Bros. Giant Super Markets 407 So. 2d 449 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
Walton v. William Wolf Baking Co., Inc. 406 So. 2d 168 La. 1981
Blanchard v. A-1 Bit and Tool Co., Inc. 406 So. 2d 773 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
the court articulated the standard of appellate review when the issue of quantum is before that court on appeal and stated at 501: "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 pr
Howell v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. 408 So. 2d 7 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
Oliver v. Parish of Jefferson 408 So. 2d 275 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
Jackson v. St. Landry Parish School System 407 So. 2d 51 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
Kalmn, Inc. v. Empiregas Corp. 406 So. 2d 276 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
McElroy v. Vest 407 So. 2d 25 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
Don Siebarth Pontiac v. Asphalt Road Bldg. 407 So. 2d 42 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
Green v. Rollins 406 So. 2d 318 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
Coco v. Winston *320 Industries, Inc.
Peralta v. Schwegmann Bros. Gt. Supermkts 406 So. 2d 720 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
: *723 "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.
Ramphrey v. Highlands Ins. Co. 406 So. 2d 691 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1981