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.

  • Mizell v. State, Through La. Dept. of Hwys. 398 So. 2d 1136 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
  • Anderson v. Safeco Insurance 396 So. 2d 322 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    CC Art. 1934(3); Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.
  • Smith v. Town of Logansport 395 So. 2d 888 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1981
    require us to examine the facts of this particular case to decide whether they reveal a clear abuse of the trial court's discretion.
  • Ewing v. Sanson 394 So. 2d 849 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
  • Malbrough v. Pascal 394 So. 2d 815 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
  • Ferro v. Green 394 So. 2d 824 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    ted) Only after making the finding that the record supports that the lower court abused its much discretion can the appellate court disturb the award, and then only to the extent of lowering it (or raising it) to the highest (or lowest) point which is reasonably within the discretion afforded that court.” wherein it stated that: “_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
  • Ricker v. Thompson 394 So. 2d 831 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    ted) Only after making the finding that the record supports that the lower court abused its much discretion can the appellate court disturb the award, and then only to the extent of lowering it (or raising it) to the highest (or lowest) point which is reasonably within the discretion afforded that court.” wherein it stated that: “_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 c
  • Wallis v. Lasyone 395 So. 2d 413 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Frazier v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 394 So. 2d 692 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    Art. 1934(3); Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Lute v. City of Lake Charles 394 So. 2d 736 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
    Art. 1934(3); (1979); Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (1976).
  • Knuckles v. Beaugh 392 So. 2d 710 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
    Olds v. Ashley, [ 250 La.
  • Scott v. Lank 392 So. 2d 719 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
  • Weissbohn v. Gulf Insurance Co. 392 So. 2d 752 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    art. 1934(3); Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., emphasize that before an appellate court can change a general damage award made by a trial court the record must clearly reveal that the trier of fact abused its discretion in making the award.
  • Boustany v. Fluid Dynamics, Inc. 392 So. 2d 750 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Richard v. Guillory 392 So. 2d 777 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
    Schexnayder v. Carpenter, supra; Olds v. Ashley, 250 La.
  • Derouen v. Dept. of Transp. & Development 392 So. 2d 765 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
    art. 1934(3); Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Sibley v. Menard 398 So. 2d 590 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.
  • Flateau v. Thom 393 So. 2d 392 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
  • Gibbons v. Orleans Parish School Bd. 391 So. 2d 976 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
    Considering the circumstances of the trauma, the type of injury and its effect upon the child, we feel the award of $7,500
  • Thibodeaux v. Schwegmann Bros. Super Market 391 So. 2d 967 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
  • Overruled LaGraize v. Bickham 391 So. 2d 1185 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
  • Jack v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co. 392 So. 2d 499 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
  • Litton v. Home Indemnity Co. 391 So. 2d 541 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    amages, “much discretion must be left to the or In Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., the court stated: “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.” wherein the 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 pers
  • Plaisance v. Lloyd 391 So. 2d 566 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    we have considered the “individual circumstances” of the instant case and “after analysis of the facts and circumstances peculiar” to our case, we have no alternative but to conclude that the trial court award is not excessive and not an abuse of the trial court’s discretion.
  • Prats v. Moffett 391 So. 2d 1299 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    II In considering the validity of the trial court’s
  • Chaney v. Our Lady of Fatima Cath. Church 391 So. 2d 501 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
  • Samanie v. Johnston Testers, Inc. 393 So. 2d 209 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    : “However, absent an initial determination that the trial court’s very great discretion in the award of general damages has been abused under the facts of this case, the reviewing court should not disturb the trier’s award.
  • Schwindt v. Tonglet 389 So. 2d 883 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
  • Benedic v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. 389 So. 2d 871 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    (1979), wherein that 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 the individual circumstances of the present case.
  • Hebert v. Lefty's Moving Service 389 So. 2d 855 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
  • Brown v. State 392 So. 2d 113 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
  • Courville v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 386 So. 2d 176 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
    See Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Hukill v. US Fidelity and Guaranty Co. 386 So. 2d 172 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
    239 , (1963) has, in unequivocal language, announced the principle 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.
  • Andry v. CUMIS INS. SOC., INC. 387 So. 2d 1374 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
    On the question of quantum, however, we find that the jury clearly abused its discretion under Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Wall v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. 389 So. 2d 80 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    See Reck v. Stevens, La., ; Lomenick v. Schoeffler, 250 La.
  • Stuart v. Gereaux 388 So. 2d 468 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    1976); a jury award or an award of a trial court can only be disturbed when the record clearly reveals that the trier of fact abused its discretion in making the award.
  • Honeycutt v. Travelers Insurance Co. 387 So. 2d 680 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
  • Hawthorne v. Southeastern Fidelity Ins. Co. 387 So. 2d 26 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
    Article 1934(3); Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., and, convince us that the award is clearly not excessive.
  • Shipp v. City of Alexandria 392 So. 2d 1078 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
    in order to alter the court's award, we must find a clear abuse of the trier of fact's much discretion under C.C.
  • Fontenot v. American Fidelity Fire Ins. Co. 386 So. 2d 165 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
  • Johnson v. Maricle 386 So. 2d 677 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
  • Bolton v. MFA Mutual Insurance 386 So. 2d 144 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    .” In Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., our Supreme Court stated: “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.” (citations omitted)
  • Thibodeaux v. Hulin Marble & Granite Works, Inc. 386 So. 2d 136 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    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.” [Citations omitted] the 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 the individual circumstances of the present case.” The court went on to add: “Thus, the initial inquiry must always be directed
  • Ashworth v. Smith 386 So. 2d 1016 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    and Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • McGrew v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 385 So. 2d 1276 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
  • Johnson v. Maricle 386 So. 2d 677 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
  • Fontenot v. Hanover Ins. Co. 385 So. 2d 238 La. 1980
  • Lomas & Nettleton Co. v. Moore 385 So. 2d 881 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
  • Wall v. Village of Tallulah 385 So. 2d 905 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1980
  • Brown v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. 385 So. 2d 572 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980