210 So. 3d 302 - Menard v. Stroy’s Empirical Analysis
2016
Citation profile
3 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Cities of Charlottesville v. Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Columbia Gas Transmission Corp. · 373 So. 2d 498 - Reck v. Stevens · 623 So. 2d 1257 - Youn v. Maritime Overseas Corp. · Maritime Overseas Corp. v. Hae Woo Youn · 773 So. 2d 670 - Duncan v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co.
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Vast discretion is accorded the trier of fact in fixing general damage awards. La. Civ. Code art. 2324.1 ; Hollenbeck v. Oceaneering Int., Inc. , 96-0377, p. 13 (La.App. 1 Cir. 11/8/96), 685 So.2d 163 , writ denied , 97-493 (La. 4/4/97), 692 So.2d 421 . This vast discretion is such that an appellate court should rarely disturb an award of general damages. Youn v. Maritime Overseas Corp. , 623 So.2d 1257 (La.1993), cert. denied , 510 U.S. 1114 , 114 S.Ct. 1059 , 127 L.Ed.2d 379 (1994). Thus, the role of the appellate court in reviewing general damage awards 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. Id. .... "The initial inquiry, in reviewing an award of general damages, is whether the trier of fact abused its discretion in assessing the amount of damages." Cone v. National Emergency Serv. Inc. , 99-0934 (La. 10/29/99), 747 So.2d 1085 , 1089 ; Reck v. Stevens , 373 So.2d 498 (La. 1979)." Id. (quoting Duncan v. Kansas City S. Ry. Co. , 00-66 (La. 10/30/00), 773 So.2d 670 , 682-83 ).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““Factual findings of a trial court are reviewed under the manifest error-clearly wrong standard of review.” Thibodeaux v. Comeaux, 11-127, p. 5 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/15/11), 69 So.3d 674, 679 (citing Fontenot v. Patterson Ins., 09-669 (La. 10/20/09), 23 So.3d 259 ). An appellate court may not disturb a finding of fact unless the record establishes that a factual, reasonable basis does not exist and the finding is clearly wrong or manifestly erroneous. Id.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.