Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Youn v. Maritime Overseas Corp., 623 So. 2d 1257.

1628 citing documents.

Tracie Bernard v. Family Dollar Stores of Louisiana, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
Clyde Rayburn v. Shirley Ponthieux La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
5 In considering whether an award of general damages is excessive or inadequate, we are guided by the supreme court’s cert.
Alden v. Lorning 904 So. 2d 24 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
In Mitter, 03-1608, p. 10, 874 So.2d at 271-72 , in which the Supreme Court held: [T]he 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.
Rayburn v. Ponthieux 902 So. 2d 1136 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
| Jn considering whether an award of general damages is excessive or inadequate, we are guided by the supreme court’s cert.
In re New Orleans Train Car Leakage Fire Litigation 903 So. 2d 9 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
Adams v. CSX Railroads 902 So. 2d 413 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
Lenard v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 900 So. 2d 322 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
Eddie J. Williams, Jr. v. Finley, Inc. D/B/A Naomi Heights Nursing Home La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
For this treatment, the Trial Court awarded in excess of $40,000.00 in general damages.” The Louisiana Supreme Court articulated the proper standard for reviewing a trial court’s
Dean Iwamoto v. James M. Wilcox La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
Williams v. Finley, Inc. 900 So. 2d 1040 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
For this treatment, the Trial .Court awarded in excess of $40,000.00 in general damages.” The Louisiana Supreme Court articulated the proper standard for .reviewing a trial court’s
Iwamoto v. Wilcox 900 So. 2d 1047 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
Motton v. Lockheed Martin Corp. 900 So. 2d 901 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
DiMaggio v. Williams 900 So. 2d 1014 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
Gulfstream Services v. Hot Energy Services 907 So. 2d 96 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
Christopher Sims v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
Sims v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. 897 So. 2d 834 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
Wilson v. Transportation Consultants, Inc. 899 So. 2d 590 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
Bailey v. Nunez 898 So. 2d 589 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
-1261 (La.1993) Analyzing the award of the trial court pursuant to the standards set forth in Youn , and considering the particular injuries and their effects under the particular circumstances on Mr. Bailey, we find no clear abuse of the "much discretion" of the trier of fact.
Seals v. SHELTER INS. COMPANIES 894 So. 2d 1259 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
Aguilar v. TRANSIT MANAGEMENT OF SE LA. 900 So. 2d 65 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
quoted approvingly recently in a Per Curiam by our *72 Supreme Court, Miller v. Clout, 03-0091 (La.10/21/03), , the Court explained: [T]he 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.
Daniels v. Seruntine 900 So. 2d 47 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
Mosley v. Orleans Parish School Bd. 898 So. 2d 524 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
the court discussed the standard of review of general damage awards as follows: 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 disturbing such awards gives little guidance as to what articulation suff
Casbon v. Phillips 897 So. 2d 790 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
Souhlas v. Le Tam 897 So. 2d 762 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
Collier v. Benedetto 897 So. 2d 775 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
Brown v. State 896 So. 2d 1136 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
LeMasters v. Boyd Gaming Corp. 898 So. 2d 497 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
Wilson v. LeBlanc 906 So. 2d 529 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
Hamilton v. Walker 893 So. 2d 1002 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
In support of this contention, cert.
Bonnie Hamilton v. Charles R. Walker and Allstate Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
In support of this contention, cert.
Jones v. Harris 896 So. 2d 237 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
Henry v. Williams 892 So. 2d 765 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
Rathey v. Priority EMS, Inc. 894 So. 2d 438 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
Garrett v. Boh Bros. Const. Co., LLC 894 So. 2d 366 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
Julie Guidry v. Coregis Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
Inadequate Warnings 12 Clement v. Frey, 95-1119 (La.1/16/96), Cheairs v. State, 03-680 (La.12/3/03)
Guidry v. Coregis Ins. Co. 896 So. 2d 164 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
[12] Clement v. Frey, 95-1119 (La.1/16/96), ; Cheairs v. State, 03-680 (La.12/3/03), .
Beilenson v. Jefferson Parish Hospital Service District No. 2 891 So. 2d 74 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
Noran J. Robin, Jr., Et Ux. v. Allstate Indemnity Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
Brandi Broussard v. Michelle Fredericks La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
to award special damages without awarding general damages, in Wainwright v. Fontenot, the Supreme Court held that it would be inconsistent with the great deference afforded the factfinder to state that, as a matter of law, such a verdict must always be erroneous.” 2 Further, the supreme court found that what appeared to be a blanket rule in some 1 cert.
Broussard v. Fredericks 889 So. 2d 483 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
Robin v. Allstate Indemnity Co. 889 So. 2d 450 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
Williams v. Maritime, Inc. 889 So. 2d 1055 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
Wright v. General Aviation Co. 889 So. 2d 1115 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
LaFleur v. Martin 890 So. 2d 26 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
Miller [v. Clout ], 03-0091 at p. 7, 857 So.2d [458] at 463, quoting *31
Sam A. Daigle and Theresa M. Daigle v. Trinity United Mortgage, LLC & Joe Diez La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
As such, “the role of an appellate court in reviewing general damages is not to decide what it considers to be an appropriate award, but rather to review the exercise of discretion by the trier of fact.”
Daigle v. Trinity United Mortgage, L.L.C. 890 So. 2d 583 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
As such, “the role of an appellate court in reviewing general damages is not to decide what it considers to be an appropriate award, but rather to review the exercise of discretion by the trier of fact.” (La.
Rehm v. Morgan 885 So. 2d 687 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
Washington v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. 886 So. 2d 572 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., cert.
Foreman v. Babin 887 So. 2d 143 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
Judy Barton v. Cicero and Earline Hines La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by