Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
19 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1979–2019 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Louisiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Rickerson v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co.green2 sentences2019However, we conclude that the better view is that expressed in Rickerson v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, 543 So.2d 519 , 523 (La.App. 1st Cir.1989), where the court stated: 'The Coco standard of review does not apply to a trial court's review of a jury's award. 2019However, we conclude that the better view is that expressed in Rickerson v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, 543 So.2d 519 , 523 (La.App. 1st Cir.1989), where the court stated: 'The Coco standard of review does not apply to a trial court's review of a jury's award. | 6 | 10 |
Gonzales v. Xerox Corp.green2 sentences2015Based upon the trial court’s legal error, the First Circuit rendered a de novo award of general damages, finding that “[w]hen an appellate court has all of the pertinent facts that are needed to render judgment, it should render a judgment rather than remand the case for a new trial.” Id. (citing Gonzales v. Xerox Corp., 254 La. 182 , 320 So.2d 163, 165 (1975)). 2015Based upon the trial court’s legal error, the First Circuit rendered a de novo award of general damages, finding that “[w]hen an appellate court has all of the pertinent facts that are needed to render judgment, it should render a judgment rather than remand the case for a new trial.” Id. (citing Gonzales v. Xerox Corp., 254 La. 182 , 320 So.2d 163, 165 (1975)). | 1 | 1 |
Parker v. Robinsongreen2 sentences2008See Leighow, 06-0642 at p. 12, 960 So.2d at 130 , and Parker v. Robinson, 05-0160, pp. 11-13 (La.App. 4th Cir.2/22/06), 925 So.2d 646, 653-54 , writ denied, 06-0944 (La.9/29/06), 937 So.2d 860 . 2008See Leighow, 06-0642 at p. 12, 960 So.2d at 130 , and Parker v. Robinson, 05-0160, pp. 11-13 (La.App. 4th Cir.2/22/06), 925 So.2d 646, 653-54 , writ denied, 06-0944 (La.9/29/06), 937 So.2d 860 . | 1 | 1 |
Leighow v. Crumpgreen2 sentences2008See Leighow, 06-0642 at p. 12, 960 So.2d at 130 , and Parker v. Robinson, 05-0160, pp. 11-13 (La.App. 4th Cir.2/22/06), 925 So.2d 646, 653-54 , writ denied, 06-0944 (La.9/29/06), 937 So.2d 860 . 2008See Leighow, 06-0642 at p. 12, 960 So.2d at 130 , and Parker v. Robinson, 05-0160, pp. 11-13 (La.App. 4th Cir.2/22/06), 925 So.2d 646, 653-54 , writ denied, 06-0944 (La.9/29/06), 937 So.2d 860 . | 1 | 1 |
Parker v. Robinsongreen2 sentences2008See Leighow, 06-0642 at p. 12, 960 So.2d at 130 , and Parker v. Robinson, 05-0160, pp. 11-13 (La.App. 4th Cir.2/22/06), 925 So.2d 646, 653-54 , writ denied, 06-0944 (La.9/29/06), 937 So.2d 860 . 2008See Leighow, 06-0642 at p. 12, 960 So.2d at 130 , and Parker v. Robinson, 05-0160, pp. 11-13 (La.App. 4th Cir.2/22/06), 925 So.2d 646, 653-54 , writ denied, 06-0944 (La.9/29/06), 937 So.2d 860 . | 1 | 1 |
Spangler v. Wal Mart Stores, Inc.green2 sentences2001See Spangler v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 95-2044, p. 6 (La.App. 1st Cir.5/10/96), 673 So.2d 676, 680 , writs denied, 96-1450, 96-1407, (La.9/27/96), 679 So.2d 1353 . 2001See Spangler v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 95-2044, p. 6 (La.App. 1st Cir.5/10/96), 673 So.2d 676, 680 , writs denied, 96-1450, 96-1407, (La.9/27/96), 679 So.2d 1353 . | 1 | 1 |
Spangler v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.green2 sentences2001See Spangler v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 95-2044, p. 6 (La.App. 1st Cir.5/10/96), 673 So.2d 676, 680 , writs denied, 96-1450, 96-1407, (La.9/27/96), 679 So.2d 1353 . 2001See Spangler v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 95-2044, p. 6 (La.App. 1st Cir.5/10/96), 673 So.2d 676, 680 , writs denied, 96-1450, 96-1407, (La.9/27/96), 679 So.2d 1353 . | 1 | 1 |
Clement v. Freygreen2 sentences1996Cf. Clement v. Frey, 95-1119, 95-1163, p. 5-7 (La.1/16/96), 95- 1119 La. 1 /16/96, 666 So.2d 607, 609-11 (reaffirming the Coco standard in the allocation of fault). 1. 1996Cf. Clement v. Frey, 95-1119, 95-1163, p. 5-7 (La.1/16/96), 95- 1119 La. 1 /16/96, 666 So.2d 607, 609-11 (reaffirming the Coco standard in the allocation of fault). 1. | 1 | 1 |
Fruge v. Thornhillgreen2 sentences1991See Fruge, 560 So.2d at 914 . 1991See Fruge, 560 So.2d at 914 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bonin v. Ferrellgas, Inc.
neutral
2 sentences2005Bonin v. Ferrellgas, Inc., 02-1031 (La.App. 3 Cir. 8/6/03) , 855 So.2d 781 . 2005Bonin v. Ferrellgas, Inc., 02-1031 (La.App. 3 Cir. 8/6/03) , 855 So.2d 781 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Walker v. Maybelline Co.
green
2 sentences1996In Walker v. Maybelline Co., 477 So.2d 1136 (La.App. 1 Cir.1985), the court sustained an award of $426,584.35 against Maybelline, which was found to have had knowledge of the likelihood of pseudomonas infection where the eye is scratched by a mascara applicator, yet failed to warn its users of this danger. 1996In Walker v. Maybelline Co., 477 So.2d 1136 (La.App. 1 Cir.1985), the court sustained an award of $426,584.35 against Maybelline, which was found to have had knowledge of the likelihood of pseudomonas infection where the eye is scratched by a mascara applicator, yet failed to warn its users of this danger. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
green
2 sentences1989The reasons for judgment given by the trial judge do not clearly establish whether he was attempting to render a de novo finding or whether he was reviewing the jury's general damage award using the appellate standard of review set forth in Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., 341 So.2d 332 (La.1976). [2] The Coco standard of review does not apply to a trial court's review of a jury's award. 1989The reasons for judgment given by the trial judge do not clearly establish whether he was attempting to render a de novo finding or whether he was reviewing the jury's general damage award using the appellate standard of review set forth in Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., 341 So.2d 332 (La.1976). [2] The Coco standard of review does not apply to a trial court's review of a jury's award. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Reck v. Stevens
green
2 sentences1980Reck v. Stevens, 373 So.2d 498 (La.1979) reiterates the Coco rule and states: “Thus, the initial inquiry must always be directed at whether the trier court’s award for the particular injuries and their effects upon this particular injured person is, a clear abuse of the trier of fact’s ‘much discretion’, La.Civ.C. art. 1934(3) in the award of damages. 1980Reck v. Stevens, 373 So.2d 498 (La.1979) reiterates the Coco rule and states: “Thus, the initial inquiry must always be directed at whether the trier court’s award for the particular injuries and their effects upon this particular injured person is, a clear abuse of the trier of fact’s ‘much discretion’, La.Civ.C. art. 1934(3) in the award of damages. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Anderson v. Welding Testing Laboratory, Inc.
green
2 sentences1979Using these principles and the evidence in the record, we can not say that the trier of fact, the trial judge, abused his "much discretion." Anderson v. Welding Testing Laboratory, Inc., 304 So.2d 351 (La. 1974). 1979Using these principles and the evidence in the record, we can not say that the trier of fact, the trial judge, abused his "much discretion." Anderson v. Welding Testing Laboratory, Inc., 304 So.2d 351 (La. 1974). | 1 | 1979–1979 |