DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

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.

  • Untereiner v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. 385 So. 2d 587 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    (1979); Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (1976).
  • Choate v. Greene 386 So. 2d 948 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    In Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., the 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 *950 abused its discretion in making its award.” (Emphasis ours) where the Supreme 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 person is, a clear
  • Johnson v. Coca Cola Bottling Co., Inc. 386 So. 2d 993 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
    where the Supreme 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 person is, a clear abuse of the trier of fact's `much discretion', La.Civ.C.
  • McGowan v. Farris 384 So. 2d 544 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    239 , ; Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., La., ; Reck v. Stevens, La., .
  • Weysham v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. 385 So. 2d 19 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
  • Meyers v. Basso 381 So. 2d 843 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
  • Mayer v. McNair Transport, Inc. 384 So. 2d 525 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1980
  • Hebert v. Diamond M Co. 385 So. 2d 410 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
  • Lawrence v. Hartsuck 383 So. 2d 453 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    239 , (1963); Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Taylor v. Zetz 7 Up Bottling Co. 384 So. 2d 811 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Johnson v. Franks 383 So. 2d 117 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    scretion must be left to the judge or jury In Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., the Supreme 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.” where the Supreme 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 inj
  • Perry v. Domingue 383 So. 2d 130 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    eft to the judge or jury 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.” (Emphasis supplied) 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 person
  • Mid-State Homes, Inc. v. Lartigue 383 So. 2d 99 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
  • Holubar v. State 385 So. 2d 362 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Hanzy v. Sam 385 So. 2d 355 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
  • Followed Launey v. Thomas 379 So. 2d 27 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
  • Besnard v. Department of Highways 381 So. 2d 1303 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
    Under the Louisiana Supreme Court's latest directives on the issue of quantum, (1979), the Court said: "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.
  • Carver v. Cabiro 381 So. 2d 969 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
  • Chambers v. United Cab Co. 381 So. 2d 1300 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    In the instant case the evidence establishes the plaintiff did all that could be reasonably expected to complete the repairs as expeditiously as possible.” In the Supreme Court’s (1979), the Court said that the initial inquiry of an appellate court on the issue of quantum must always be 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 or “great discretion” in t
  • Moffett v. Lumpkin 382 So. 2d 278 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
    1934(3); Reck v. Stevens, La.1979, .
  • Babineaux v. Firemen's Insurance Co. of Newark 381 So. 2d 904 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    Art. 1934; Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Walters v. Thrasher 381 So. 2d 557 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    reiterates the Coco rule and states: “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.
  • Engolia v. Cumis Ins. Soc., Inc. 383 So. 2d 1055 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
  • Searcy v. Porter 381 So. 2d 540 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1980
  • Miller v. Lambert 380 So. 2d 695 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
    Considering the guidelines for appellate review of damage awards, as enunciated in Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., we find the damages were neither inadequate nor excessive.
  • Fleming v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. 380 So. 2d 687 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    239 , ; Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., La., ; Reck v. Stevens, La., .
  • Dice v. Allstate Insurance Co. 380 So. 2d 692 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
  • Jolivette v. Safeco Ins. Co. 379 So. 2d 1213 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
    Adhering to the guidelines for reviewing courts set forth in Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., we find that under the facts and circumstances of this case the award of $1150.00 for general damages was inadequate and constituted an abuse of the trial judge's "much discretion".
  • McCoy v. Burns 379 So. 2d 1140 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1980
  • Daigle v. Lang 377 So. 2d 1384 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1979
  • Wexler v. Occhipinti 378 So. 2d 1073 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1979
  • McDonald v. American Fire & Indemnity Ins. 378 So. 2d 1013 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Marshall v. Commercial Union Insurance 378 So. 2d 1052 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
  • Worsham v. Hanover Insurance Co. 378 So. 2d 1060 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    reasserted the holding in Coco that an abuse of the trial court’s much discretion must first be found before the appellate court can inquire into what change in the award may be made.
  • Rogers v. Weiser Detectives & Security Services, Inc. 378 So. 2d 502 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    The Supreme Court’s grant of writs and remand “” establishes that the Supreme Court does not agree.
  • Recherche, Inc. v. Jewelry Jungle, Inc. 377 So. 2d 1329 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
  • Brummerloh v. Firemen's Ins. Co. of Newark 377 So. 2d 1301 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
    and Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
  • Placide v. Jay 378 So. 2d 473 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., ” our Supreme Court states: In the event the appellate court finds from the record an abuse of discretion, the award may be disturbed by lowering it to the highest point which is reasonably within the discretion afforded the trier of fact.
  • Cardwell v. Jefferson Rentals Division 379 So. 2d 255 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1979
    These additional briefs should examine our original opinion dated May 4, 1979
  • Sullivan v. Zetz 7-Up Bottling Co. 376 So. 2d 614 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    however, we find no sanctioned basis for modifying this judgment.
  • Fontenot v. Hanover Insurance Co. 378 So. 2d 461 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
  • Thomisee v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 376 So. 2d 1056 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    Article 1934(3); Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., and, and find that the award made is clearly excessive for the reasons set forth hereafter.
  • Broussard v. Missouri Pac. R. Co. 376 So. 2d 532 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
  • Rogers v. Weiser Detectives & Security Services, Inc. 375 So. 2d 942 La. 1979
  • Holden v. Straughn 376 So. 2d 1292 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1979
  • Novick v. Textron, Inc. 375 So. 2d 730 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
  • Oddo v. Thompson 375 So. 2d 740 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
  • Monette v. Kilgore 374 So. 2d 664 La. 1979
  • Philippe v. Browning Arms Co. 375 So. 2d 151 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1979
  • Dement v. Barnette 375 So. 2d 202 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    we determine initially that the record clearly reveals the trial court abused its discretion under the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case and this particular plaintiff.