Cited by

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

2744 citing documents.

Breaux v. Exxon Corp. 511 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Devillier v. McCarty 500 So. 2d 848 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Slay v. Old Southern Life Insurance Co. 498 So. 2d 1129 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Ward v. Sylvester 498 So. 2d 1111 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Joshua v. Fulton 498 So. 2d 1132 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
The applicable standard of appellate review of factual conclusions reached by a trial judge, 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.
Maxwell v. State, Department of Transportaiton & Development 499 So. 2d 681 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Custer v. New Orleans Steamboat Co. 499 So. 2d 1258 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Torres v. US Fidelity and Guar. Co. 499 So. 2d 1293 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
Oubre v. Bank of St. Charles and Trust Co. 499 So. 2d 602 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
*605 the Louisiana Supreme Court held that: [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 e
Butler v. Crescent Land & Development Co. 499 So. 2d 1163 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Justice v. Sylvester 499 So. 2d 590 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
Gallagher v. Favrot 499 So. 2d 1205 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
Bloxom v. Bloxom 494 So. 2d 1297 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
Harrell v. Daniels 499 So. 2d 482 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
Sevier v. United States Fidelity & Guar. Co. 497 So. 2d 1380 La. 1986
Powers v. Continental Insurance Co. 499 So. 2d 400 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Nora v. Grayline Motor Tours, Inc. 499 So. 2d 401 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Louque v. Smith 499 So. 2d 266 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Bourgeois v. Lake Development Corp. 498 So. 2d 77 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
LeBlanc v. Andrew 497 So. 2d 1056 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Nu-Lite Electrical Wholesalers, Inc. v. DECKARD & TREADAWAY ELEC. AIR CONDITIONING & REFRIGERATION 498 So. 2d 120 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
Duplechin v. Toce 497 So. 2d 763 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
Waterbury v. Waterbury 496 So. 2d 1374 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
Since their testimony together with the other evidence in the record furnishes a reasonable factual basis for the trial judge's finding that the transactions were real and not simulations, (La.
Brannon v. Shelter Mutual Insurance Co. 496 So. 2d 1354 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
“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.”
Trahan v. Pousson 497 So. 2d 58 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Howard v. Howard 499 So. 2d 222 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
Harrigan v. Freeman 498 So. 2d 58 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Johnson v. Beavers 496 So. 2d 1251 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
Schneider v. Sears Roebuck and Co. 496 So. 2d 1258 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
Clearly, there was abundant evidence before the jury which upon reasonable evaluation of credibility furnished a reasonable factual basis for its finding
Perez v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 496 So. 2d 1171 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Sassone v. Gould 496 So. 2d 1239 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
McDermott, Inc. v. M-Elec. & Const. Co., Inc. 496 So. 2d 1105 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
Sewell v. 20th Century Homes, Inc. 496 So. 2d 1094 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Mart v. Hill 496 So. 2d 1149 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Dartez v. Powell Oil Co. 499 So. 2d 1046 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
Conner v. American Druggists Insurance Co. 495 So. 2d 990 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Unless we find manifest error in that determination, we are required to affirm, and no purpose would be served in this opinion by addressing the purely theoretical question of whether the sheriff’s department owed the deceased a duty of rescue.
Picheloup Construction Co. v. Lindy Dennis Air Conditioning Co. 499 So. 2d 1101 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
we have thoroughly reviewed the facts of the case and find that the appellant’s contentions lack merit.
Mid-Continent Aggregate, Inc. v. Brandt 499 So. 2d 1117 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Fontenot v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co. 499 So. 2d 997 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
Jones v. Hebert & LeBlanc, Inc. 499 So. 2d 1107 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
Olivier v. Sears Roebuck & Co. 499 So. 2d 1058 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
Our review of factual conclusions reached by a
Freeman v. Garcia 495 So. 2d 351 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
E.G. Schafer Construction Co. v. Gallagher Transfer & Storage Co. 495 So. 2d 348 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Myers v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 493 So. 2d 1170 La. 1986
Carter v. Koehring *1174 Company
Johnson v. Masur 493 So. 2d 881 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
Gadman v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation & Development 493 So. 2d 661 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
Davis v. Winningham Datsun-Volvo, Inc. 493 So. 2d 719 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
and Watson v. State Farm Fire and Cas.
Taylor v. Dixie Dandy 493 So. 2d 654 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
Arceneaux v. Domingue, *659 and Watson v. State Farm Fire and Cas.
Gadman v. STATE, DEPT. OF TRANSP. & DEV. 493 So. 2d 661 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
Armstrong v. Armstrong 493 So. 2d 253 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986