Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Canter v. Koehring Company, 283 So. 2d 716.

2744 citing documents.

Mullins v. State 686 So. 2d 940 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1996
Stewart v. Winn Dixie Louisiana, Inc. 686 So. 2d 907 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1996
Dupont v. Holiday Inn of Jennings 685 So. 2d 525 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
Furthermore, the Louisiana Supreme Court, (1973), stated, as follows: "When there is evidence before the trier of fact which, upon its reasonable evaluation of credibility, furnishes a reasonable factual basis for the trial court's finding, on review the appellate court should not disturb this factual finding in the absence of manifest error."
Winn v. City of Alexandria 685 So. 2d 281 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
Hoerner v. Wesley-Jensen 684 So. 2d 508 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
This court should determine whether the district court judgment is clearly wrong considering all the evidence, and it's [sic] progeny."
Collins v. McElveen 682 So. 2d 978 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
Ramsey v. Ramsey 682 So. 2d 797 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
Mertens v. Mertens 688 So. 2d 1148 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
Carter v. Baham 683 So. 2d 299 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
Kirkland v. Riverwood Intern. USA, Inc. 681 So. 2d 329 La. 1996
Holt v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. 680 So. 2d 117 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
Jackson v. American Mut. Liability Ins. Co. 676 So. 2d 716 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
Hickman v. Exide, Inc. 679 So. 2d 527 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
Hataway v. Jeep Corp. 679 So. 2d 913 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
Faul v. Bonin 678 So. 2d 627 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
Brian v. O.S. Johnson Construction Co. 676 So. 2d 756 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
Allstate Insurance Co. v. Batiste 676 So. 2d 747 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
This court has recognized that “[t]he reason for this well-settled principle of re *756 view is based not only upon the trial court’s better capacity to evaluate live witnesses (as compared with the appellate court’s access only to a cold record), but also upon the proper allocation of trial and appellate functions between the respective courts.”
Johnson v. STATE FARM MUT. AUTO. INS. 675 So. 2d 1161 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1996
Canter v. Koehring *1163 Co.
Bowers v. Orleans Parish School Bd. 694 So. 2d 967 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
Mix v. Krewe of Petronius 675 So. 2d 792 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
Egan v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. 677 So. 2d 1027 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
the Louisiana Supreme Court set out the following criteria necessary to impose individual liability on an executive officer or co-employee: 1.
Lugenbuhl v. Dowling 676 So. 2d 602 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
Shephard ex rel. Shephard v. Scheeler 674 So. 2d 1135 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
Roberts v. Lowry 673 So. 2d 1323 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
1989), we synthesized the “manifest error” and “clearly wrong” and the United States Supreme Court in Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564 , 105 S.Ct.
Page v. Page 673 So. 2d 1317 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
Trentecosta v. Beck 677 So. 2d 1013 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
Levron v. State 673 So. 2d 279 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
Boutte v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc. 674 So. 2d 299 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
Canter [v. Koehring], supra [ ] at 724 [(La.1973)]; Virgil v. American Guarantee & Liability Ins.
Syrie v. Schilhab 679 So. 2d 143 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
Stobart, 617 So.2d at 883
Price v. City of New Orleans 672 So. 2d 1045 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
McDonald, supra at p. 110 , citing
Ochsner Clinic v. Maxicare Louisiana, Inc. 672 So. 2d 979 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1996
Walker v. Schwegmann Giant Supermarkets 671 So. 2d 983 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
4th Cir.1991), writ denied
Callihan v. Town of Vinton 668 So. 2d 735 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
Jack v. State ex rel. Department of Health & Human Resources 671 So. 2d 26 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
This court has recognized that “[t]he reason for this well-settled principle of review is based not only upon the trial court’s better capacity to evaluate live witnesses (as compared with the appellate court’s access only to a cold record), but also upon the proper allocation of trial and appellate functions between the respective courts.”
Rowe v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 670 So. 2d 718 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
Mahaffey v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 679 So. 2d 129 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
Moore v. RLCC Technologies, Inc. 668 So. 2d 1135 La. 1996
Allen v. Rawlins 669 So. 2d 1282 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
Regan v. Gore 670 So. 2d 268 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
This court has recognized that “[t]he reason for this well-settled principle of review is based not only upon the trial court’s better capacity to evaluate live witnesses (as compared with the appellate court’s access only to a cold record), but also upon the proper allocation of trial and appellate functions between the respective courts.”
Custis v. Whitaker Const. 670 So. 2d 339 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
Succession of Gilbert 668 So. 2d 1212 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
Ventress v. Union Pacific RR Co. 666 So. 2d 1210 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
Ebrahimpour v. Bozorg 668 So. 2d 434 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
Merritt v. Karcioglu 668 So. 2d 469 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
Clement v. Frey 666 So. 2d 607 La. 1996
Hill v. Morehouse Parish Police Jury 666 So. 2d 612 La. 1996
Milton v. Elmwood Care, Inc. 664 So. 2d 503 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
Pitts v. Burton 665 So. 2d 1314 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
stated that “[t]he reason for this well-settled principle of review is based not only upon the trial court’s better capacity to evaluate live witnesses (as compared with the appellant court’s access only to |2a cold record), but also upon the proper allocation of trial and appellate functions between th
Ramogasse v. Lafitte Welding Works 666 So. 2d 1176 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
Ritz v. Ritz 666 So. 2d 1181 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by