Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Gassiott v. Gordey, 182 So. 2d 170.

18 citing documents.

Gypsum Systems Interiors, Ltd. v. Republicbank Dallas, N.A. 554 So. 2d 282 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Bickham v. Wax Lumber Company, La.App., (1 Cir.1955); see also Gassiott v. Gordey, [ (La.App.
Gallineau v. Travelers Indemnity Co. 322 So. 2d 408 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
Defendant relies on circumstantial evidence and that circumstantial evidence must exclude all other reasonable hypotheses “with a fair amount of certainty.” (La.App.
Braud v. Kinchen 310 So. 2d 651 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
Gassiott v. Gordey, La.App., (3 Cir. 1966).
Braud v. Kinchen 310 So. 2d 657 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
Gassiott v. Gordey, La.App., (3 Cir. 1966).
Federal Insurance Company v. Cinnater 305 So. 2d 720 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1974
Romero v. Butcher Air Conditioning Company 255 So. 2d 132 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1971
United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co. v. Hyams 238 So. 2d 750 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1970
Hutchins v. Westley 235 So. 2d 434 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1970
Wild v. Continental Casualty Co. 234 So. 2d 783 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
and cases cited therein.
McDaniel v. Welsh 234 So. 2d 833 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
Gassiott v. Gordey, La.App., ; Valentine v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation, La.App., .
Brignac v. Pan American Petroleum Corporation 224 So. 2d 84 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1969
4th Cir. 1966); (La.App.
Marcantel v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Company 219 So. 2d 180 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1969
3 Cir., , 175: "By a preponderance of evidence is meant simply, evidence which is of greater weight, or more convincing, than that which is offered in opposition to it; that is, evidence which as a whole shows that the fact or causation sought to be proved is more probable than not.
Phillips v. Liberty Mutual Insurance 209 So. 2d 795 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
hold that plaintiffs have failed to carry their burden of supporting their case by a preponderance of the evidence, by which “* * * is meant, simply, evidence which is of greater weight, or more convincing, than that which is offered in opposition to it; that is, evidence which as a whole shows that the fact or causation sought to be proved is more probable than not.” Gassiott v. Gordey, La.App., (3rd Cir.1966).
Barham v. Mathieu 198 So. 2d 145 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
Duhon v. Cormier (La.App.1966) , Martin v. Westchester (La.App.1966) , Gassiott v. Gordey, La.App.1966) , Hayward v. Carraway (La.App.1965) , Perkins v. Texas & New Orleans Railroad Co. (1962) 243 La.
Pelloat v. State ex rel. Department of Highways 198 So. 2d 674 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
1966) ; and Hayward v. Carraway (La.App.1965) .
Wright Root Beer Co. of Baton Rouge, Inc. v. Fowler Products Co. 196 So. 2d 615 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
2d 769 , Gassiott v. Gordey (La.App.1966) , Hayward v. Carraway (La.
Slocum v. American Casualty Insurance Company 189 So. 2d 299 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1966
3 Cir., , 175: "By a preponderance of evidence is meant, simply, evidence which is of greater weight, or more convincing, than that which is offered in opposition to it; that is, evidence which as a whole shows that the fact or causation sought to be proved is more probable than not * * *" Therefore, we are of the opinion tha
Duhon v. Cormier 186 So. 2d 645 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1966
3 Cir., , "By a preponderance of evidence is meant, simply, evidence which is of greater weight, or more convincing, than that which is offered in opposition to it; that is, evidence which as a whole shows that the fact or causation sought to be proved is more probable than not.