Cited by

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

1552 citing documents.

Carter v. Brookshire Grocery Co. 690 So. 2d 933 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
Badeaux v. STATE, DOTD 690 So. 2d 203 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.
Merritt v. Karcioglu 687 So. 2d 1002 La. 1997
In Youn, 623 So.2d at 1260-61 , this court discussed the troubling problems in appellate review of general damage awards, stating: (La.
Todd v. State 685 So. 2d 313 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1997
LeBlanc v. Continental Grain Co., Inc., 95-813 (La.App.
Baumgarten v. Daigle 689 So. 2d 687 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
Roig v. Travelers Ins. Co. 694 So. 2d 362 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.
Demery v. Housing Auth. of New Orleans 689 So. 2d 659 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
Harvey v. Traylor 688 So. 2d 1324 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
Manville v. Citizen 689 So. 2d 578 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
Myles v. Brookshires Grocery Co. 687 So. 2d 668 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
Adams v. Marathon Oil Co. 688 So. 2d 75 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1997
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,"
Giambrone v. Miller 688 So. 2d 53 La. Ct. App. 1st 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,” ...
Hollingsworth v. Bowers 690 So. 2d 825 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
Warren v. Campagna 686 So. 2d 969 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
Terral v. Waffle House, Inc. 684 So. 2d 1165 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
Woods v. American Hardware Mutual Insurance Co. 685 So. 2d 504 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
Baudoin v. Opie 685 So. 2d 553 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
Todd v. State ex rel. Department of Social Services, Office of Community Services 685 So. 2d 310 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
LeBlanc v. Continental Grain Co., Inc., 95-813 (La.App.
Moore v. Safeway, Inc. 700 So. 2d 831 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
Williams v. State, ex rel. Department of Wildlife & Fisheries 684 So. 2d 1018 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
Andrus, 670 So.2d at 1210
Olivier v. LeJeune 686 So. 2d 55 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
Peterson v. Lowery 682 So. 2d 959 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
Stevens, Hollingsworth v. State Through Dept. Of Transp.
Migues v. City of Lake Charles 682 So. 2d 946 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
Charles v. Cecil Chatman Plumbing & Heating Co. 686 So. 2d 43 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
In assessing general damages where a trial court has awarded none, appellate courts are constrained to the guidelines set forth under Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., to award the lowest amount that would have been within the discretion of the trial court.
Hebert v. Podiatry Ins. Co. of America 688 So. 2d 1107 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
-61 (La.1993), which provides: (La.
Matthews v. Rhodes United Fidelity Funeral Home 680 So. 2d 1375 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
Andrus, 670 So.2d at 1210
Holt v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. 680 So. 2d 117 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
Hollie v. Beauregard Parish Police Jury 680 So. 2d 1218 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
Day v. Silver Oak Cas., Inc. 679 So. 2d 486 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
Marceaux v. Gibbs 680 So. 2d 1189 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
Thus, before we may conclude that an award for injuries is excessive we are obliged to first take into consideration the particular effects of the particular injuries on these particular plaintiffs, Id., that is, rather than use as a scale the prior awards in cases with generically similar injuries to determine whether the trier of fact has abused its discretion, it is preferable that we determine whether the award for the injuries sustained by these particular plaintiffs constituted a clear abu
ESTE' v. State Farm Ins. Companies 676 So. 2d 850 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
-1261 (La.1993), where the court explained: (La.
Martinez v. Bennett 676 So. 2d 241 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
1059 , 127 L.Ed.2d 379 (1994)
Leatherman v. Riverside Village 676 So. 2d 1180 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
Andrus v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 95-0801, (La.3/22/96)
Harvey v. Ouachita Parish School Bd. 674 So. 2d 372 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
Wartell v. Woman's & Children's Hosp. 676 So. 2d 632 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
Thus, before we conclude that an award for injuries is excessive, we are obliged to first take into consideration the particular effects of the particular injuries on these particular plaintiffs, Id., that is, rather than use as a scale the prior awards in cases with generically similar injuries to determine whether the trier of fact has abused its discretion, it is preferable that we determine whether the award for the injuries sustained by these particular plaintiffs constituted a clear abuse
Egan v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. 677 So. 2d 1027 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., (La.
Roberts v. Lowry 673 So. 2d 1323 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
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.
Lachico v. First National Bank Shares, Inc. 673 So. 2d 305 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
Steadman v. Georgia-Pacific Corp. 672 So. 2d 420 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
Doucet v. Doug Ashy Bldg. Materials, Inc. 671 So. 2d 1148 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
1059 , 127 L.Ed.2d 379 (1994)
Jones v. STATE EX REL. DEPT. OF HEALTH AND HOSP. 671 So. 2d 1074 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
Andrus v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 670 So. 2d 1206 La. 1996
LeBlanc v. Continental Grain Co., Inc. 672 So. 2d 951 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1996
Callihan v. Town of Vinton 668 So. 2d 735 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
1059 , 127 L.Ed.2d 379 (1994), where the court explained: (La.
Tenpenny v. Ringuet 670 So. 2d 644 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
The Louisiana Supreme Court in Youn , pointed out that the role of an appellate court in reviewing general damage awards is to review the exercise of discretion by the trier of fact and not to decide what it considers to be an appropriate award.
Head v. Pendleton Memorial Methodist Hosp. 669 So. 2d 504 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
Dubroc v. Dupar 670 So. 2d 349 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
Merritt v. Karcioglu 668 So. 2d 469 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
In Youn v. Maritime Overseas Corp ., above, the Louisiana Supreme Court stated: [1] this Court commented on appellate review of general damage awards and on the "much discretion" in fixing damages accorded to trial courts by La.Civ.Code art. 1934(3) (1870).
New Orleans Riverwalk Assoc. v. RP GUASTELLA, INC. 664 So. 2d 151 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
Wilson v. NATIONAL UNION FIRE INS. OF LOUISIANA 665 So. 2d 1252 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995