DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Cosby v. Holcomb Trucking, Inc., 942 So. 2d 471.

22 citing documents.

  • Angela Expose v. Rouses Enterprises, LLC D/B/A Rouses Markets La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2024
    9/6/06), (citations omitted).
  • Dustin Aucoin & Ashley Aucoin v. Copper Meadows Homeowners Association, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
  • Aucoin v. Copper Meadows Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. 269 So. 3d 859 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
  • Bagley v. Lake Bruin Landing & Marina, L.L.C. 248 So. 3d 613 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2018
  • Arc Industries, L.L.C. v. William H. Nungesser La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
  • Belinda Layssard Stokes v. Doris Barnhart Stokes La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
  • Stokes v. Layssard 140 So. 3d 1258 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    Cosby v. Holcomb Trucking, Inc., 05-470 (La.9/6/06), .
  • Carter ex rel. Blair v. Brothers Lapalco, L.L.C. 118 So. 3d 1194 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    “However, where documents or objective evidence so contradict the witness’s story, the court of appeal may find manifest error or clear wrongness [sic] even in a finding purportedly based on a credibility determination.” Cosby v. Holcomb Trucking, Inc., 05-0470 (La.9/6/06), .
  • White v. Select Specialty Hospital 110 So. 3d 1254 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    “However, where documents or objective evidence so contradict the witness’s story, the court of appeal may find manifest error or clear wrongness (sic) even in a finding purportedly based on a credibility determination.” Cosby v. Holcomb Trucking, Inc., 05-0470, pp. 12-13 (La.9/6/06), .
  • Marshall v. Air Liquide-Big Three, Inc. 107 So. 3d 13 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    “In order to reverse a fact finder’s determination of fact, an appellate court must review the record in its entirety and (1) find that a reasonable factual basis does not exist for the finding, and (2) further determine that the record establishes that the fact finder is clearly wrong or manifestly erroneous.” Cosby v. Holcomb Trucking, Inc., 05-0470, pp. 12-13 (La.9/6/06), .
  • Kimberly Carter v. Louisiana Medical Mutual Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
  • Carter v. Louisiana Medical Mutual Insurance 40 So. 3d 327 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    Cosby v. Holcomb Trucking, Inc., 05-470 (La.9/6/06), .
  • Fern Creek Owners' Ass'n v. City of Mandeville 21 So. 3d 369 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    Cosby v. Holcomb Trucking, Inc., 05-0470, pp. 6-7 (La.9/6/06), (quoting Oakbrook Civic Ass’n, ); see also La.
  • Elsa Gajewsky v. John T. Ning, M.D. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
  • Gajewsky v. Ning 997 So. 2d 567 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    Cosby v. Holcomb Trucking, Inc., 05-470 (La.9/6/06), .
  • Johnston v. Shelton 961 So. 2d 582 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
    In Cosby v. Holcomb Trucking, Inc., 2005-0470 (La.9/6/06), , the supreme court discussed appellate review of factual findings: Under the manifest error standard of review, a factual finding cannot be set aside unless the appellate court finds that it is manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong.
  • Cathcart v. Magruder 960 So. 2d 1032 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
    Cosby v. Holcomb Trucking, Inc., 05-0470, pp. 6-7 (La.9/6/06), (quoting Oakbrook Civic Ass'n, ).
  • Muey v. Chandler 954 So. 2d 800 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
    Cosby v. Holcomb Trucking, Inc., XXXX-XXXX (La.9/6/06), ; Stobart v. State through Dept. of Transp.
  • BASS, LTD. v. Gerald 954 So. 2d 243 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
    Standard of Review Recently, in Cosby v. Holcomb Trucking, Inc., 05-470 (La.9/6/06), , the supreme court reiterated that reversal of a trial court's findings of fact is warranted only after the appellate court has performed a complete review and determined that the trial court's finding of fact is manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong.
  • Bass, Ltd. v. Tim Gerald La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
    9/6/06), the supreme court reiterated that reversal of a trial court’s findings of fact is warranted only after the appellate court has performed a complete review and determined that the trial court’s finding of fact is manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong.
  • Allen v. Finley 953 So. 2d 881 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
    Cosby v. Holcomb *885 Trucking, Inc., 2005-0470 (La.09/06/06), .
  • Munro v. Carstensen 945 So. 2d 961 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
    Such findings are subject to the manifest error standard of review recently reiterated by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Cosby v. Holcomb Trucking, Inc., XXXX-XXXX (La.9/6/06), : Under the manifest error standard of review, a factual finding cannot be set aside unless the appellate court finds that it is manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong.