Cited by

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

1628 citing documents.

Aucoin v. Doerner 717 So. 2d 1239 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
Bowens v. Patterson 716 So. 2d 69 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
Manuel v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Co. 717 So. 2d 277 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
Youn v. Maritime Overseas *279 Corp., cert.
Bachemin v. Anderson 717 So. 2d 677 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
Hopstetter v. Nichols 716 So. 2d 458 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
Pommier v. ABC Ins. Co. 715 So. 2d 1270 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
Straughter v. Harnwell 715 So. 2d 718 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
Abuan v. Smedvig Tankships, Ltd. 717 So. 2d 1194 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc.
Washington v. Daste 749 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
Muse v. Dunbar 716 So. 2d 110 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
The standard of review to determine whether a cert.
Reeves v. Structural Preservation Systems 716 So. 2d 58 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
Declouet v. Orleans Parish School Bd. 715 So. 2d 69 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
Cormier v. THE Ins. Co. 716 So. 2d 387 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
the Louisiana Supreme Court discussed the standard an appellate court must apply when reviewing the award of general damages by a lower court.
Lee v. Alsobrooks 712 So. 2d 1060 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
in which the Supreme Court explained that the initial inquiry by this Court is whether the award for the particular injuries and their effects under the particular circumstances on the particular injured person is a clear abuse of the vast discretion of the trier of fact.
Brasseaux v. Town of Mamou 713 So. 2d 742 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
Smith v. K-Mart Corp. 712 So. 2d 1042 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
Civ.Code Ann. art. 2324.1; -61 (La.1993), cert.
Harrington v. La. State Bd. of Elementary and Secondary Educ. 714 So. 2d 845 La. Ct. App. 4th 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
In considering the amount of general damages, (La.
Sims v. State Farm Auto. Ins. Co. 714 So. 2d 132 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
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
Stevenson v. La. Patient's Comp. Fund 710 So. 2d 1178 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
Birdsall v. Regional Elec. & Const., Inc. 710 So. 2d 1164 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
Gardner v. Griffin 712 So. 2d 583 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
Babb v. Boney 710 So. 2d 1132 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
Netecke v. State ex rel. DOTD 715 So. 2d 439 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
Wyatt v. Red Stick Services, Inc. 711 So. 2d 745 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
In reviewing general damages awards, the supreme court in Youn v. Maritime Overseas Corp.. -1261 (La.1993) explained: The role of an appellate court in reviewing general damages is not to decide what it considers to be appropriate award, but rather to review exercise of discretion by trier of fact.
Howard v. ICRR 709 So. 2d 1044 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
The standard of review of damages is whether the court abused its much discretion in fixing the award
Bryant v. Solomon 712 So. 2d 145 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
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 give little guidance as to what articulation suffices to justify modification of a generous or stingy award."
Helaire v. Andrews 709 So. 2d 274 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
Molony v. USAA Property and Cas. Ins. Co. 708 So. 2d 1220 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
Cooper v. Borden, Inc. 709 So. 2d 878 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
Dixon v. Tillman, 29,483 (La.App.2d Cir. 5/7/97), .
Jeanpierre v. Mikaelian 709 So. 2d 915 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
Varnell v. Louisiana Tech University 709 So. 2d 890 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
Smith v. Walker 708 So. 2d 797 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
Bell v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co. 707 So. 2d 102 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
Hae Woo Youn v. Maritime Overseas Corp., 92-3017 (La.10/7/93)
Procell v. Williamette Industries, Inc. 710 So. 2d 267 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
“Each case is different, and the adequacy or inadequacy of the award should be determined by the facts or circumstances particular to the case under consideration.” ce rt.
Brodtmann v. Duke 708 So. 2d 447 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
Vigh v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. 706 So. 2d 480 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
Norton v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 707 So. 2d 489 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
Sanders v. International Indem. Co. 708 So. 2d 772 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
declared the standard for appellate courts in reviewing awards.
Creel v. St. Charles Gaming Co., Inc. 707 So. 2d 475 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
Dekeyser v. Automotive Cas. Ins. Co. 706 So. 2d 676 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
Merritt v. Karcioglu, 96-0431 (La.2/25/97), ; citing Youn v. Maritime Overseas Corp., 92-3017 (La.9/3/93), , 1260-1261 .
O'RILEY v. City of Shreveport 706 So. 2d 213 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
Whitthorne v. Food Lion, Inc. 706 So. 2d 193 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
Dixon v. Tillman, 29,483 (La.App.2d Cir. 5/7/97), .
Constans v. Choctaw Transport, Inc. 712 So. 2d 885 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
Mindful that in quantum determinations, (La.
Jackson v. CSX Transp., Inc. 712 So. 2d 514 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
Russell v. Noullet 706 So. 2d 540 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998