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.

  • Genusa v. Robert 720 So. 2d 166 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
    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.
  • Aucoin v. Doerner 717 So. 2d 1239 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    “[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,” (La.
  • Abuan v. Smedvig Tankships, Ltd. 717 So. 2d 1194 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
  • Washington v. Daste 749 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    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.
  • Muse v. Dunbar 716 So. 2d 110 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
  • Reeves v. Structural Preservation Systems 716 So. 2d 58 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    Andrus, 670 So.2d at 1210
  • Cormier v. THE Ins. Co. 716 So. 2d 387 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
    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.
  • Brasseaux v. Town of Mamou 713 So. 2d 742 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
    1059 , 127 L.Ed.2d 379 (1994) (footnote omitted), the supreme court examined the standard of review appellate courts are to apply while reviewing a damage award: (La.
  • Harrington v. La. State Bd. of Elementary and Secondary Educ. 714 So. 2d 845 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
    Reichert v. State, Department of Transportation and Development, 96-1419, 96-1460 (La.5/20/97)
  • Graf v. Jim Walter Homes, Inc. 713 So. 2d 682 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
  • Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Browning-Ferris Industries 714 So. 2d 168 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
  • Allstate Insurance v. Reynolds 712 So. 2d 981 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    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 comb should rarely disturb an award of general damages.
  • Williams v. City of Baton Rouge 715 So. 2d 15 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
  • Landry v. Clement 711 So. 2d 829 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
  • Brown v. Southern Baptist Hosp. 715 So. 2d 423 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
    Ruiz v. Oniate , pp. 23-24, 697 So.2d at 1385 .
  • Babb v. Boney 710 So. 2d 1132 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
  • Creel v. St. Charles Gaming Co., Inc. 707 So. 2d 475 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
    1059 , 127 L.Ed.2d 379 (1994) explained the standard of review applicable to general damage awards: (La.
  • O'RILEY v. City of Shreveport 706 So. 2d 213 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
  • Bostwick v. MAPP Industries, Inc. 707 So. 2d 441 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1997
    "[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," (La.
  • Nusloch v. Browning-Ferris Services, Inc. 703 So. 2d 794 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
  • Delome v. Tulane Educational Fund 703 So. 2d 139 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
    Reichert v. State, Department of Transportation and Development, 96-1419, 96-1460 (La.5/20/97)
  • Stegall v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 702 So. 2d 66 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
  • Haynes v. Calcasieu Medical Transp., Inc. 702 So. 2d 1024 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
    1993) (footnote omitted), explained the appropriate standard of review applicable to general damage awards: (La.
  • Baker v. Freeman 702 So. 2d 1140 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
    the court stated the following: The standard for appellate review of general damage awards is difficult to express and is necessarily non-specific, and the requirement of an articulated basis for *1145 disturbing such awards gives little guidance as to what articulation suffices to justify modification of a
  • Faye v. State, Department of Transportation & Development 702 So. 2d 1036 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
  • Viator v. Liverpool & London SS Protection and Indem. Ass'n 701 So. 2d 487 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
    1993) explained the appropriate standard of review applicable to general damage awards: (La.
  • Walker v. McCartney 700 So. 2d 898 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1997
    "[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," (La.
  • Manuel v. City of Jeanerette 702 So. 2d 709 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
    the court held that the adequacy or inadequacy of the award should be determined by the facts or circumstances particular to the case under consideration.
  • Bellard v. South Cent. Bell Telephone Co. 702 So. 2d 695 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
  • Ruiz v. Oniate 697 So. 2d 1373 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
    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.
  • Fontana v. LA. SHERIFFS'AUTO. RISK 697 So. 2d 1030 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
    Theriot, 625 So.2d at 1341
  • Burnaman v. Risk Management, Inc. 698 So. 2d 17 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
  • Futch v. Attwood 698 So. 2d 958 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
    the supreme court commented upon the appellate review of general damage awards and on the much discretion allotted trial courts.
  • Coscino v. Wolfley 696 So. 2d 257 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
    4th Cir. 1/19/96), , aff'd as amended, 96-0431 (La.2/25/97)
  • Garza v. Fontenot 696 So. 2d 194 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
    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.
  • Warner v. City of New Orleans 694 So. 2d 1231 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
    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.
  • Southern v. Lyons 696 So. 2d 128 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
  • Morehead v. Ford Motor Co. 694 So. 2d 650 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
    Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., Foster v. Lafayette Ins.
  • Reichert v. State, Dept. of Transp. and Development 694 So. 2d 193 La. 1997
    Stephens, 642 So.2d at 284 ; Jaffarzad v. Jones Truck Lines, Inc., (La.App.
  • Kreher v. Semreh Club 694 So. 2d 1222 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
    "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.
  • Gladney v. May 697 So. 2d 1022 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
  • Thompson v. Coates 694 So. 2d 599 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
    Faulkner v. State, Dept. of Transportation and Development, 25,857 (La.App.2d Cir. 10/26/94), .
  • Riser v. Acadiana Limousine Service 693 So. 2d 330 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
    1059 , 127 L.Ed.2d 379 explained the appropriate standard of review applicable to general damage awards: (La.
  • Dauzat v. Canal Ins. Co. 692 So. 2d 739 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
    1059 , 127 L.Ed.2d 379 (1994), 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.
  • Aycock v. Gulf Coast Transp., Inc. 692 So. 2d 1334 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
    Stevens v. Hartford Ins.
  • Lejeune v. Union Pacific Railroad 693 So. 2d 804 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
  • Kelty v. Brumfield 691 So. 2d 242 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
  • Meche v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 692 So. 2d 544 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
    1059 , 127 L.Ed.2d 379 (1994): *551 (La.
  • Trahan v. Savage Industries, Inc. 692 So. 2d 490 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
    -1261 (La.1993), where the court explained: (La.
  • Broussard v. Romero 691 So. 2d 1265 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997