Cited by

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

1552 citing documents.

Sloan v. Dailey 664 So. 2d 792 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
explained the appropriate standard of review applicable to general damage awards: (La.
Lawrence v. Department of Transportation & Development 665 So. 2d 551 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
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.
Bourque v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 664 So. 2d 585 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Boudreaux v. Blank 664 So. 2d 705 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
Watkins v. Bethley 662 So. 2d 839 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
Oxley v. Sabine River Authority 663 So. 2d 497 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
the Louisiana Supreme Court looked with disfavor on the use of award scales based on prior cases.
Goodliffe v. Parish Anesthesia Associates 663 So. 2d 769 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
STATE EX REL. DEPT. OF SOCIAL SERV. v. Southern Baptist Hosp. 663 So. 2d 443 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
Nevertheless, to Youn 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.
Hattori v. Peairs 662 So. 2d 509 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Christophe v. State ex rel. Department of Health & Hospitals 663 So. 2d 289 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
The standard for an appellate court’s cert.
Olivier v. Allstate Ins. Co. 663 So. 2d 207 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
Claudet v. Weyrich 662 So. 2d 131 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
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.
Blair v. Imperial Inn, Inc. 662 So. 2d 150 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Nevertheless, the theme that emerges from Gaspard, supra, Coco, supra, 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.
Rivard v. Petroleum Transport Co., Inc. 663 So. 2d 755 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
LIGA suggests that the trial court abused its discretion in making its awards for loss of consortium, citing Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
Johnson v. Automotive Cas. Ins. Co. 661 So. 2d 633 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
Boddie v. State 661 So. 2d 617 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
Boutte v. Nissan Motor Corp. 663 So. 2d 154 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
Evans v. Kilbert 660 So. 2d 167 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
Sledge, supra ; (La.App.
Arnold v. Airborne Freight Corp. 667 So. 2d 1063 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
See Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., cert.
Akerman v. Dawes 658 So. 2d 1270 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
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," (La.
Kilpatrick v. Alliance Cas. & Reinsurance Co. 663 So. 2d 62 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
Williams v. City of Monroe 658 So. 2d 820 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
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.
Degruise v. Houma Courier Newspaper Corp. 657 So. 2d 580 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Schexneider v. Louisiana Dept. of Health and Hospitals 660 So. 2d 508 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
Dauzat v. Rapides Parish Police Jury 657 So. 2d 484 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
1059 , 127 L.Ed.2d 379 (1994), wherein the court stated: (La.
Tartar v. Hymes 656 So. 2d 756 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
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,"
Delphen v. Dept. of Transp. & Dev. 657 So. 2d 328 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
Black v. STATE, DEPT. OF PUBLIC SAFETY & CORR. 657 So. 2d 270 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
Ledbetter v. Concord General Corp. 651 So. 2d 911 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
O'Brien v. Remington Arms Company, Inc., , writ denied Estate of Thomas v. State, Through the Department of Transportation and Development, (La.App.
Reichert v. State, Department of Transportation & Development 656 So. 2d 47 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
Stephens v. Town of Jonesboro, supra; Jaffarzad v. Jones Truck Lines, Inc., writ denied
Sledge v. Continental Cas. Co. 654 So. 2d 358 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
Daigle v. US Fidelity and Guar. Ins. Co. 655 So. 2d 431 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Vedros v. Public Grain Elevator of N.O., Inc. 654 So. 2d 775 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
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.’
Haydel v. Hercules Transport, Inc. 654 So. 2d 418 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Palmer v. K-Mart Corp. 653 So. 2d 1334 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Ehrman v. Holiday Inns, Inc. 653 So. 2d 732 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
In re Morales 652 So. 2d 1095 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
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....
Broussard v. Fidelity Fire & Casualty Insurance Co. 651 So. 2d 959 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Shaw v. Russell 652 So. 2d 133 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
Phillips v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc. 650 So. 2d 1259 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
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,"
Budd v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 650 So. 2d 429 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
It is clear that “such a hypothetical scale of hypothetical awards cannot be used to determine whether this trier of fact has abused its discretion in the award to this particular plaintiff under the facts and circumstances peculiar to this *432 case.” -501 (La.1979).
Juge v. Judson 650 So. 2d 312 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Bordelon v. Management Co., Inc. 649 So. 2d 1070 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
*1074 The general rule that an appellate court will not disturb an award by the trial court unless the trier of fact abuses its much discretion, extends to awards of attorney's fees.
Gaines v. Ryan's Family Steakhouse, Inc. 654 So. 2d 704 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
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.
Bradford v. Winn Dixie of Louisiana, Inc. 648 So. 2d 464 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
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.
Guidroz v. STATE, THROUGH DOTD 648 So. 2d 1361 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Romaguera v. Piccadilly Cafeterias, Inc. 648 So. 2d 1000 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1994
in which the court stated, at 1260-1261: (La.
Blackshear v. Allstate Ins. Co. 647 So. 2d 589 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
and Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., we raise the award to the lowest reasonable amount, or $50,000.00.
Davis v. STATE, DOTD 647 So. 2d 552 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
the Louisiana Supreme Court looked with disfavor on the use of award scales based on prior cases.
Naquin v. Teer 649 So. 2d 993 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
and Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.