DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Nelson v. Zurich Insurance Company, 172 So. 2d 70.

26 citing documents.

  • Elaine Lazard v. Progressive Paloverde Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
    So.2d 70 (1965), required the trial court to rule in her favor or Mr. Helou’s favor.
  • Richardson v. Aldridge 854 So. 2d 923 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
    In such a case, , (1965): Where witnesses differ, the courts should reconcile, if possible, the apparent contradictions their testimony presents.
  • Chargois v. Guillory 702 So. 2d 1068 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
    In support of its reversal of the trial court, , (1965), which held, in material part: Where witnesses differ, the courts should reconcile, if possible, the apparent contradiction their testimony presents.
  • Miller v. Leonard 588 So. 2d 79 La. 1991
    Co., , (1965), we held it was error for the trial court to dismiss plaintiff guest passenger's claims against the two defendant drivers because of apparent irreconcilable differences in their testimony.
  • Strickland v. Pitts 506 So. 2d 1360 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
    On appeal, , (1965), and contend that the trial court was clearly wrong in failing to resolve the disputed facts.
  • Jolivette v. Highland Insurance Co. 488 So. 2d 235 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    and conclude that it is not possible to reconcile the conflicting evidence under the circumstances of this case.
  • ABC Sch. Uniforms v. Le Hig's Uniform Center 446 So. 2d 780 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
  • LeBlanc v. Cordaro 378 So. 2d 1027 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1979
    Co., , (1965); Treadway v. State Farm Ins.
  • Perry v. Law 334 So. 2d 523 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    *525 , (1975), the court stated: "From the foregoing, it is obvious that the opposed versions are irreconcilable, hence we must resort to the application of the well recognized rule that: `Where witnesses differ, the courts should reconcile, if possible, the apparent contradictions their testimony presents
  • Eason v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. 327 So. 2d 187 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1976
    Co., , (1965) and Brown v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Ins.
  • Michel v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. 314 So. 2d 535 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
    Co., , (1965); Ashenfelter v. Gertrude Geddes Willis Life Ins.
  • West v. McDole 292 So. 2d 839 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
    209 (1934); , (1965); Marcantel v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., (La.App.
  • Katz & Besthoff, Inc. v. Auto Trailer Rental, Inc. 288 So. 2d 69 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
  • Heimbaugh v. Federal Insurance Company 281 So. 2d 839 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
  • McDonald v. Osborne 279 So. 2d 263 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
    2d Cir. 1964; reversed on other grounds, , ) as an unwarranted extension of the doctrine of res ipsa loqui-tur.
  • Smolinski v. Taulli 276 So. 2d 286 La. 1973
  • Day v. Campbell-Grosjean Roofing & Sheet Metal Corp. 256 So. 2d 105 La. 1971
  • United Services Automobile Ass'n v. Travelers Insurance Co. 255 So. 2d 418 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
    Co., , (1965), a suit by a guest passenger against two drivers whose opposing versions of the accident were irreconcilable, the Supreme Court observed: “Where witnesses differ, the courts should reconcile, if possible, the apparent contradictions their testimony presents.
  • Zerangue v. Hardware Dealers Mutual Fire Ins. 255 So. 2d 227 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
    209 , , : “Where witnesses differ, the courts should reconcile, if possible, the apparent contradictions their testimony presents.
  • Harts v. Pizzalato 245 So. 2d 740 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
    (1965) ; Marcantel v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, (La.App.
  • Marcantel v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Company 219 So. 2d 180 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1969
    We find that our trial brother erred in dismissing both suits and in failing to apply, under the circumstances of the present case, , , 72: "* * * [When] the opposed versions are irreconcilable, [the court] must resort to the application of the well recognized rule that: `Where witnesses differ, the courts should reconcile, if possible, the apparent contradictions their testimony presents.
  • Mickle v. Nezat 217 So. 2d 203 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
    To tiiis finding, plaintiff Mickle takes exception, , (1965), compels a different conclusion.
  • Wheeler v. Simonton 215 So. 2d 359 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1968
    Co., , (1965), in which the Louisiana Supreme Court held that where witnesses differ, the court should reconcile, if possible, apparent contradictions, and, if this cannot be done, the probabilities or improbabilities of their respective statements must be considered in the light of their capacity, opportunity
  • Treadway v. State Farm Insurance Company 204 So. 2d 609 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1967
  • Jamison v. Reese Variety Stores, Inc. 203 So. 2d 859 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
  • Carrington v. New York Fire & Marine Underwriters, Inc. 198 So. 2d 447 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
    In a , (1965), that where witnesses differ the courts should reconcile, if possible, apparent contradictions and, if this cannot be done, the probabilities or improbabilities of their respective statements must be considered in the light of their capacity, opportunity, or incentive for observation, the amount