DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

1628 citing documents.

  • Piro v. Stan Weber & Associates 638 So. 2d 463 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
    cert, denied, Maritime Overseas Corp. v. Youn, — U.S.—, 114 S.Ct.
  • Breaux v. Larkin 637 So. 2d 1313 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
  • White v. Longanecker 637 So. 2d 1213 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
  • Cheramie v. Horst 637 So. 2d 720 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
  • Rochel v. Terrebonne Parish School Bd. 637 So. 2d 753 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
    cert denied, ___ U.S. ___, 114 S.Ct.
  • Rispone v. Louisiana State University 637 So. 2d 731 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
  • Smith v. LOUISIANA HEALTH & HUMAN RES. 637 So. 2d 1177 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
  • Dixon v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc. 638 So. 2d 306 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
  • Wilson v. Compass Dockside, Inc. 635 So. 2d 1171 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
  • Sattler v. Hammond 640 So. 2d 570 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
    the Louisiana Supreme Court stated: “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 suffices to justify modification
  • Reid v. State Through DOTD 637 So. 2d 618 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
  • Cormier v. Cliff's Drilling Co. 640 So. 2d 552 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
  • Jones v. Trailor 636 So. 2d 1112 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
  • Prestenbach v. Louisiana Power & Light 638 So. 2d 234 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1994
  • Ard v. East Jefferson General Hosp. 636 So. 2d 1042 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1994
    : 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.
  • Durant v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation & Development 636 So. 2d 1022 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
    However, our jurisprudence, already replete with language cautioning the appellate courts not to disturb general damages awards absent a clear abuse of discretion by the trial court, has been augmented with a
  • Durant v. STATE, THROUGH DOTD 636 So. 2d 1022 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
    However, our jurisprudence, already replete with language cautioning the appellate courts not to disturb general damages awards absent a clear abuse of discretion by the trial court, has been augmented with a
  • Adams v. Lammon 635 So. 2d 373 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
  • Langlinais v. Figueroa 636 So. 2d 983 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
    : 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).
  • Longman v. Allstate Ins. Co. 635 So. 2d 343 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
    Moreover, the Supreme Court made the following observation concerning appellate review of general damage awards: 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
  • Beoh v. Watkins 635 So. 2d 424 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
    ic with the Sewerage and Water Board's attempt to obtain a trial de novo as a means of extricating this Court from the straightjacket we find ourselves in when reviewing issues of fact in general and quantum in particular as a to Stobart v. State, through DOTD, the solution proposed is just as extreme in the other direction.
  • Simpson v. State Through DOTD 636 So. 2d 608 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
    the most recent decision of the Louisiana Supreme Court addressing the standard for appellate review of general damage awards, the court continues a jurisprudential trend of constricting the standard.
  • Blanchard v. Means Industries, Inc. 635 So. 2d 288 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1994
    5th Cir.1992), rev'd on other grounds, (La.
  • Russell ex rel. Wunstell v. Kossover 634 So. 2d 72 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
    In reviewing this jury’s award of general damages, we are guided by the Louisiana Supreme Court’s : “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 suffices to justify modification or a generous or stingy award.
  • Otnott v. Morgan 636 So. 2d 957 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
    we are unable to conclude that this award is abusive of the trial court's discretion.
  • Bozeman v. Reed 633 So. 2d 944 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
    Youn v. Maritime Overseas Corporation, et al
  • Brumfield v. Guilmino 633 So. 2d 903 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
    cert denied, ___ U.S. ___, 114 S.Ct.
  • Chamberlain v. State Through DOTD 633 So. 2d 871 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
    Because we have the benefit of the trial court's determination as to what amount it would have awarded in general damages based on the evidence if the cap were not in effect
  • Jenkins v. State 634 So. 2d 7 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
  • Clement v. Griffin 634 So. 2d 412 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
  • Juneau v. Louisiana Indemnity Insurance Co. 634 So. 2d 1269 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
    The standard of review applicable herein requires that we defer to the fact finder’s great discretion in reviewing damages and reverse only when an award is “beyond that which a reasonable trier of fact could assess for the effect of the particular injury to the particular plaintiff under the particular circumstances.” at 1261 (La.1993).
  • Atkinson v. Celotex Corp. 633 So. 2d 383 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
    the Supreme Court reiterated the long standing rule that the trier of fact is afforded great discretion in making an award of general damages.
  • Andrus v. Andrus 634 So. 2d 1254 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
    In Youn v. Maritime Overseas Corp., et al., the supreme court stated that the discretion of the trial court in setting a damage award is great and even vast, so that this court should rarely disturb the damages award.
  • Nugent v. Continental Cas. Co. 634 So. 2d 406 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
    the court made the following observation: The standard for appellate review of general damage awards is difficult to express and is necessarily nonspecific, and the requirement of an articulated basis for disturbing such awards gives little guidance as to what articulation suffices to justify modification o
  • Treadaway v. Shoney's, Inc. 633 So. 2d 841 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
    However, is the controlling law.
  • Davis v. Kreutzer 633 So. 2d 796 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
    Recently, the Supreme Court, held: 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....
  • Butler v. Zapata Haynie Corp. 633 So. 2d 1274 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
    the Louisiana Supreme Court denied a writ in granted a writ in and in an opinion at modified the court of appeal in part to reinstate the damages awarded by the trial court.
  • Sons v. Delaune 634 So. 2d 1212 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
    In reviewing the trial court's award of general damages for error, , slip op.
  • Fontana v. Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc. 632 So. 2d 811 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
  • Rabito v. Otis Elevator Co. 633 So. 2d 368 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
  • Stewart v. Select Ins. Co. 631 So. 2d 599 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
    Recently, our Supreme Court characterized the trier of fact's discretion as "`great' and even vast."
  • LK v. Reed 631 So. 2d 604 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
  • Powell v. Automotive Cas. Ins. Co. 631 So. 2d 581 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
    Hae Woo Youn v. Maritime Overseas Corporation, et al, (La.
  • Owens v. Anderson 631 So. 2d 1313 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
  • Spurrell v. Ivey 630 So. 2d 1378 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
  • Rick v. STATE, DOTD 630 So. 2d 1271 La. 1994
    at 1261 (La.1993), petition for cert.
  • Chenniliaro v. Kaufman & Broad Home Sys. 636 So. 2d 246 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
    the Louisiana Supreme Court, discussed the standard for appellate review of a general damage award: 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
  • Gaston v. G & D Marine Services, Inc. 631 So. 2d 547 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
  • Davis v. L.J. Earnest, Inc. 631 So. 2d 63 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
  • Vaughan Contractors, Inc. v. Cahn 629 So. 2d 1225 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994