Cited by

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

2744 citing documents.

Atwood v. State Farm Automobile Insurance Co. 666 So. 2d 1187 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
10(B) extends to both law and facts, “[w]hen 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.”
Haworth v. L'Hoste 664 So. 2d 1335 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
First City Bank v. 740 Esplanade Avenue 665 So. 2d 1190 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Singleton v. Ross 664 So. 2d 1326 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
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.”
White v. Louviere 664 So. 2d 603 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
Soileau v. Soileau 664 So. 2d 551 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
Hollis v. McDermott, Inc. 663 So. 2d 837 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
7/5/94), , and Stobart v. State, through Department of Transportation and Development
Cobb v. Kleinpeter 663 So. 2d 236 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Cobb v. Kleinpeter 663 So. 2d 236 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
Olivier v. Allstate Ins. Co. 663 So. 2d 207 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
Hatten v. Price 663 So. 2d 351 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
Harris v. Regional Transit Authority 662 So. 2d 134 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Co., We find that the trial court correctly stated the burdens of proof to be borne by the parties: As a common carrier, RTA is held to the highest degree of care and the slightest negligence causing injury to a fare-paying passenger, such as Lester Harris, will result in liability.
Pattan v. Fields 669 So. 2d 1233 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Court qualified its opinion in Stobart v. State, Department of Transportation and Development, noting: was not intended to change that synthesis or to make the scope of appellate review of facts any more limited than described in Rosell, Arceneaux [ v. Domingue, ], Canter [ v. Koehring Co., ], et al., supra.
Williams v. Hospital Service, Inc. 663 So. 2d 749 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
Uriegas v. Gainsco 663 So. 2d 162 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
Gardner v. McDonald 660 So. 2d 107 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
Donaldson v. Sanders 661 So. 2d 1010 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
Dauzat v. Rapides Parish Police Jury 657 So. 2d 484 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
1989), we synthesized the ‘manifest error’ and ‘clearly wrong’ (La.
Garlepied Transfer, Inc. v. GUARANTY BK. & TR. CO. 656 So. 2d 728 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
Young v. Logue 660 So. 2d 32 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
(emphasis added); -86 (La.
Martinez v. Schumpert Medical Center 655 So. 2d 649 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
Arceneaux v. Domingue, supra
Johnson v. Chateau Living Center 653 So. 2d 1367 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Fuge v. Uiterwyk 653 So. 2d 707 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
Stewart v. Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Co. 657 So. 2d 1327 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
Fascio v. Lee 650 So. 2d 1236 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
Phillips v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc. 650 So. 2d 1259 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
Ferrell v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. 650 So. 2d 742 La. 1995
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.
Weatherford v. Commercial Union Ins. 650 So. 2d 763 La. 1995
1978); See also Sevier v. USF & G, West v. Bayou Vista Manor, Inc., Cadiere v. West Gibson Prods.
Ranger Ins. Co. v. Mancuso 652 So. 2d 28 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
Frizzell v. Lee 652 So. 2d 55 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Smith v. State Dept. of Health & Hosp. 650 So. 2d 450 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
Goings v. State 648 So. 2d 884 La. 1995
Leblanc v. Hughes 649 So. 2d 1063 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
To the extent that the jury failed to award any property damages whatsoever when some were clearly attributable to the accident, it clearly erred
Bradford v. Winn Dixie of Louisiana, Inc. 648 So. 2d 464 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
*470 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.”
Byrum v. Neirmann 648 So. 2d 1035 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Young v. Vernon Parish School Board 647 So. 2d 556 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Sebastien v. McKay 649 So. 2d 711 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
Alleman v. Brownie Drilling Co. 647 So. 2d 371 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
Dupin v. Chambley 649 So. 2d 704 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
In Re Viviano 645 So. 2d 1301 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
Koepp v. Sea-Land Service, Inc. 645 So. 2d 1269 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
See Stobart v. State through DOTD, supra at 882, -845 (La.1989)
Vedros v. Massiha 646 So. 2d 1120 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Davidson v. Broadhead 649 So. 2d 479 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1994
Alphonse v. Omni Hotels Management Corp. 643 So. 2d 836 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
Rosell, 549 So.2d at 844
Ferruzzi, USA, Inc. v. RJ Tricon Co. 645 So. 2d 685 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
Rudd v. Atlas Processing Refinery 644 So. 2d 402 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
Kramer v. Continental Cas. Co. 641 So. 2d 557 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
Lewis v. State 642 So. 2d 260 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
Ambrose v. New Orleans Police Amb. Serv. 639 So. 2d 216 La. 1994
: 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.
Theriot v. Lasseigne 640 So. 2d 1305 La. 1994
Stobart, 617 So.2d at 883