Cited by

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

1552 citing documents.

Jake Dixon, Et Ux. v. Daniel Butane Gas Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
Dixon v. Daniel Butane Gas Inc. 858 So. 2d 837 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Bonin v. Ferrellgas, Inc. 855 So. 2d 781 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
Earl Lee Scott and Felicia A. Scott v. James Ray Roberts and State of La, Thru the Dotd La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
239, (1963) through Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., and through Reck [v. Stevens, ] to the present case is that the discretion vested in the trier of fact is “great,” and even vast, so that an appellate court should 5 rarely disturb an award of general damages.
Scott v. Roberts 856 So. 2d 1258 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
239 , (1963) through Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., and through Reck [ v. Stevens, ] to the present case is that the discretion vested in the trier of fact is "great," and even vast, so that an appellate court should rarely disturb an award of general damages.
Alcorn v. City of Baton Rouge 851 So. 2d 1194 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Johnson v. Lanoix 847 So. 2d 1283 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
239 , (1963) through Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., and through Reck [ v. Stevens, ] to the present case is that the discretion vested in the trier of fact is "great," and even vast, so that an appellate court should rarely disturb an award of general damages.
Tauzier v. Kraus 845 So. 2d 1208 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
239 , (1963) through Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., to the present case is that the discretion vested in the trier of fact is “great,” and even vast, so that an appellate court should rarely disturb an award of general damages.
Millet v. Schmidt 844 So. 2d 1072 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., Merritt v. Karcioglu, 95-1335 (La.App.
Lee v. Farmers Insurance Exchange 842 So. 2d 455 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
RThe standard for an appellate court’s and was confirmed in Youn v. Maritime Overseas, Corp., cert.
Fremin v. Continental Ins. Co. 839 So. 2d 1137 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
-61 (La.1993) (footnote omitted), where the court explained: this Court commented on appellate review of general damage awards and on the "much discretion" in fixing damages accorded to trial courts by La.
Cleland v. City of Lake Charles 840 So. 2d 686 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
and was confirmed in Youn v. Maritime Overseas, Corp., cert.
Millet v. Evangeline Health Care, Inc. 839 So. 2d 357 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
Taylor v. Clement 832 So. 2d 1089 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
and was confirmed in Youn v. Maritime Overseas, Corp., cert.
Davis v. Witt 831 So. 2d 1075 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
Wingfield v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation & Development 835 So. 2d 785 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
Wingfield v. STATE, DEPT. OF TRANSP. 835 So. 2d 785 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
Coleman v. Deno 832 So. 2d 1016 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
Merritt v. Karcioglu, 96-0431 (La.2/25/97), -07 , amended on rehearing in part by 96-0431 (La.5/9/97), .
Miller v. Clout 832 So. 2d 372 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
The standard for an appellate court’s and was confirmed in Youn v. Maritime Overseas, Corp., cert.
Lewis v. Ingles 823 So. 2d 1033 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
that the role of the appellate court is not to fix an award that it deems appropriate to the ease, but rather to determine whether, based on the effect of the *1039 particular injuries on the particular plaintiff in the particular circumstances in which plaintiff finds himself, the award is an abuse of discr
Bertrand v. Air Logistics, Inc. 820 So. 2d 1228 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
Cone v. National Emergency Serv., Inc., 99-934 (La.10/29/99)
Augillard v. Gaspard 820 So. 2d 1177 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
Squibb v. Century Group, Inc. 824 So. 2d 361 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
Inc., 99-0934 (La.10/29/99)
Younce v. Pacific Gulf Marine, Inc. 817 So. 2d 255 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
Westmoreland v. Touro Infirmary Hospital 819 So. 2d 1053 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
4 Cir. 3/21/01) , 915 this Court stated: (La.
Matos v. Clarendon Nat. Ins. Co. 808 So. 2d 841 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
Reichert v. State, Department of Transportation and Development, 96-1419, 96-1460, p. 10 (La.5/20/97), , (La.
Joseph v. Entergy 811 So. 2d 54 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
Hebert v. Old Republic Ins. Co. 807 So. 2d 1114 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
Harvey v. Cole 808 So. 2d 771 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
239 , (1963) through Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., and through Reck [ v. Stevens, ] to the present case is that the discretion vested in the trier of fact is "great," and even vast, so that an appellate court should rarely disturb an award of general damages.
Hicks v. State 802 So. 2d 1005 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
Williams v. Taylor 803 So. 2d 268 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
Dumas v. City of New Orleans 803 So. 2d 1001 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
Inc., 99-0934 (La.10/29/99)
Calcagno v. Kuebel, Fuchs Partnership 802 So. 2d 746 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
Clark v. Burchard 802 So. 2d 824 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
239 , (1963) through Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., and through Reck [v. Stevens, ] to the present case is that the discretion vested in the trier of fact is "great," and even vast, so that an appellate court should rarely disturb an award of general damages.
Duroncelet v. McLendon 801 So. 2d 1169 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
Gunn v. Robertson 801 So. 2d 555 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
And, "[i]t is only after articulated analysis of the facts discloses an abuse of discretion, that the award may on appellate review be considered either excessive or insufficient,"
Emery v. Owens-Corporation 813 So. 2d 441 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
Trahan v. Asphalt Associates, Inc. 800 So. 2d 18 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
Harvey v. STATE, DOTD 799 So. 2d 569 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
Hebert v. Parker 796 So. 2d 19 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
Carr v. Oake Tree Apartments 786 So. 2d 230 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
2d Cir.1/19/94), , writ denied, 94-0689 (La.4/29/94)
McCullin v. US Agencies Cas. Ins. Co. 786 So. 2d 269 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
Greene v. Fox Crossing, Inc., 32,774 (La.
Harris v. United Agents Insurance Co. of Louisiana 784 So. 2d 132 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
Coleman v. Deno 787 So. 2d 446 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
Vines v. Wood 785 So. 2d 126 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
1059 , 127 L.Ed.2d 379 (1994)
Abadie v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. 784 So. 2d 46 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
Daniels v. Burridge 785 So. 2d 906 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
the Louisiana Supreme Court maintained that an Appellate Court is not simply to review the medical evidence and conclude that the award is excessive or inadequate.
Snearl v. Mercer 780 So. 2d 563 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
Patin v. Duplessis PontiacBuickGMC Trucks, Inc., (La.App.
Pontiff v. Pecot & Associates Rehabilitation & Physical Therapy Services, Inc. 780 So. 2d 478 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
LaSalle v. Benson Car Co., Inc. 783 So. 2d 404 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by