Cited by

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

1628 citing documents.

Jo Anna Savant v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
Savant v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. 104 So. 3d 567 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Martin v. Walker 107 So. 3d 102 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
Nina Skinner v. State of Louisiana, Dotd La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
Youn v. Maritime Overseas Corp., et al., reh’g denied, 10/7/93.
Short v. Terminix Pest Control, Inc. 104 So. 3d 119 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Granger v. Christus Health Central Louisiana 97 So. 3d 604 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
|fvlThe supreme court has also stated, cert.
Moore v. Stewart 94 So. 3d 1018 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
Gaunt v. Progressive Security Insurance 92 So. 3d 1250 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
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.”
Buckheister v. United States Environmental Services, L.L.C. 97 So. 3d 414 La. 2012
Jones v. Capitol Enterprises, Inc. 89 So. 3d 474 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Stoll v. Allstate Insurance Co. 95 So. 3d 1089 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Pirtle v. Allstate Insurance 92 So. 3d 1064 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Shirley Langley, Et Ux. v. American Legion Hospital La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
Margaret Montalvo Richard v. Harold Artigue La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
“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 of a generous or stingy award.” cert.
Richard v. Artigue 87 So. 3d 997 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
“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 of a generous or stingy award.” ce rt.
Watters v. Department of Social Services 102 So. 3d 118 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
5 Cir. 10/27/09), , writ granted, 09-2750 (La.4/23/10), , and aff'd as amended, 09-2750 (La.10/19/10), , cert.
Caskey v. Merrick Construction Co. 86 So. 3d 186 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
Sam Staub Enterprises, Inc. v. Chapital 88 So. 3d 690 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
4 Cir. 4/14/10), , writ denied, 2010-110611 (La.9/3/10), ().
Kathy A. Darbonne, Et Ux. v. Bertrand Investments, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
Sonja Dauzat Deligans, Et Ux. v. Ace American Insurance Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
Youn v. Maritime Overseas Corp., et al., reh’g denied, 10/7/93.
Talbert v. Evans 88 So. 3d 673 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Deligans v. Ace American Insurance 86 So. 3d 109 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Youn v. Maritime Overseas Corp., et al., reh'g denied, 10/7/93.
Adrienne Stelly v. Zurich American Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
Stelly v. Zurich American Ins. Co. 83 So. 3d 1225 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Constance Cormier v. Republic Insurance Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
Cormier v. Republic Insurance Co. 118 So. 3d 16 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
des that: “In the assessment of damages in cases of offenses, quasi offenses, and quasi contracts, much discretion must be left to the judge or jury.” The supreme court has described this discretion as “vast” and “such that an appellate court should rarely disturb an award.” Howard v. Union Carbide Corp., 09-2750, p. 5 (La.10/19/10), -56 ().
Powell v. Chabanais Concrete Pumping, Inc. 82 So. 3d 548 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
Ezzell v. Miranne 84 So. 3d 641 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
1260-61 (La.1993), cert.
Eunice M. Guidry v. Allstate Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
Youn v. Maritime Overseas Corp., et al., reh’g denied, 10/7/93.
Guidry v. Allstate Insurance Co. 83 So. 3d 91 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
Youn v. Maritime Overseas Corp., et al., reh’g denied, 10/7/93.
George McCarthy v. Entergy Gulf States, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
Co., (the fact finder‘s discretion in awarding general damages is vast and should rarely be disturbed)
Christina Hoyt Hutto v. McNeil-ppc, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
ly disagree about what is an appropriate award of damages in a particular case, but “[i]t is only when the award is, in either direction, beyond that which a reasonable trier of fact could assess for the effects of the particular injury to the particular plaintiff under the particular circumstances that the appellate court should increase or reduce the award.” cert.
McCarthy v. Entergy Gulf States, Inc. 82 So. 3d 336 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
Co., (the fact finder’s discretion in awarding general damages is vast and should rarely be disturbed)
Hutto v. McNeil-PPC, Inc. 79 So. 3d 1199 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
uently disagree about what is an appropriate award of damages in a particular case, but “[i]t is only when the award is, in either direction, beyond that which a reasonable trier of fact could assess for the effects of the particular injury to the particular plaintiff under the particular circumstances that the appellate court should increase or reduce the award.” cert.
Harold Thibodeaux v. Melinda Trahan La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
In considering whether the award of general damages is excessive, cert.
Lori Johnson v. David John St. Romain La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
Johnson v. St. Romain 74 So. 3d 836 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
Thibodeaux v. Trahan 74 So. 3d 850 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
In considering whether the award of general damages is excessive, cert.
Reeves v. Grove 72 So. 3d 1010 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
Richard Le v. Nitetown, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
The law clearly requires that we must determine “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 ‘much discretion’ of the trier of fact.”
Dejoie v. Guidry 71 So. 3d 1111 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
In other contexts, the Louisiana Supreme Court has refused to disturb an award unless it is “so gross as to be contrary to right reason.”
LeBlanc v. PYNES 69 So. 3d 1273 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
Carl Jones, Sr. v. Centerpoint Energy Entex La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
In considering whether the award of general damages is excessive, cert.
Jones v. Centerpoint Energy Entex 66 So. 3d 539 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
In considering whether the award of general damages is excessive, cert.
Pollock v. TALCO MIDSTREAM ASSETS, LTD. 70 So. 3d 835 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
Deroche v. Latour 71 So. 3d 959 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
Sherrie L. Lafleur v. Shelter Mutual Insurance Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
Chambers v. Village of Moreauville 60 So. 3d 125 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
McDonald v. AIG National Insurance Co. 63 So. 3d 240 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
Munch v. Backer 63 So. 3d 181 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
“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.”