Cited by
Opinions in Louisiana that cite Rando v. Anco Insulations Inc., 16 So. 3d 1065.
-
Becker v. Jefferson Parish Department of Parks & Recreation
30 So. 3d 1007
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Rando v. Anco Insulations Inc., 2008-1163 (La.5/22/09), (citing Parish Nat.
-
Katner v. Katner
28 So. 3d 566
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Rando v. Anco Insulations, Inc., 08-1163, p. 21 (La.5/22/09), .
-
MWD SERVICES, INC. v. Humphries
26 So. 3d 906
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Rando v. Anco Insulations, Inc., 08-1163, p. 10 (La.5/22/09), .
-
Baker v. Baker
27 So. 3d 958
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
The supreme court recently addressed prescription in *967 Rando v. Anco Insulations, Inc., 08-1169, p. 10 (La.5/22/09), , 1082: If prescription is evident on the face of the pleadings, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show the action has not prescribed.
-
Gary v. Moncla Well Service
21 So. 3d 1101
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
quoted in Rando v. Anco Insulations, Inc., 08-1163, p. (La.5/22/09), .
-
DiBenedetto v. Noble Drilling Co.
23 So. 3d 400
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
23:1031.1; Rando v. Anco Insulations, Inc., 2008- 1163, 2008-1169 (La.5/22/09), .
-
Spectrum Automotive Finishes, Inc. v. Westbank Body Works, Inc.
27 So. 3d 875
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
One of the basic tenets of the manifest error standard of review is that “reasonable evaluations of credibility and reasonable inferences of fact should not be disturbed upon review, even though the court of appeal is convinced that had it been the trier of fact, it would have weighed the evidence differently.” Rando v. Anco Insulations Inc., 2008-1163 (La.5/22/09), (citing Parish Nat.
-
Hunter v. JINDAL
20 So. 3d 592
La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
Rando v. Anco Insulations, Inc., 2008-1163 (La.5/22/09), ; (La.