Cited by

Canter v. Koehring 7 Company

superseded by statute on other grounds, La.R.S.

superseded by statute on other grounds, La.R.S.

In Virgil v. American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Co., (), the Louisiana Supreme Court stated (emphasis added in bold): “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 appell

In addition, the standard is based on “the proper 1 ^allocation of trial and appellate functions between the respective courts.” Stobart, 617 So.2d at 883 , superseded by statute on other grounds as noted in Walls v. Am.

In addition, the standard is based on “ ‘the proper allocation of trial and appellate functions between the respective courts.’ ” Stobart, 617 So.2d at 883 , superceded by statute on other grounds as noted in Walls v. Am.

Nearly forty years ago, this court, in an opinion by Justice Tate, set forth the bedrock principle that a reviewing court must give deference to the findings of the trier of fact: When there is evidence before the trier of fact which, upon its reasonable evaluation of credibility, fu

Nearly forty years ago, this court, in an opinion by Justice Tate, set forth the bedrock principle that a reviewing court must give deference to the findings of the trier of fact: When there is evidence before the trier of fact which, upon its reasonable evaluation of credibility, furnishes a | reasonable factual basis for th

In addition, the standard is based on “the proper allocation of trial and appellate functions between the respective courts.” Stobart, 617 So.2d at 888 , superseded by | iastatute on other grounds as noted in Walls v. Am.

Under that standard, the appellate court must “give great weight to factual conclusions of the trier of fact; where there is conflict in the testimony, reasonable evaluations of credibility and reasonable inferences of fact should not be disturbed upon review, even *1273 though the appellate court may feel that its own evaluations and inferences are as reasonable.”

(explaining the appellate court should defer to the trial court’s factual findings based on the “trial court’s better capacity to evaluate live witnesses (as compared with the appellate court’s access only to a cold record) .

We are mindful that the manifest error standard of review applies when the fact finder’s determination is based upon a credibility evaluation “for only the factfinder can be aware of the variations in demeanor and tone of voice that bear so heavily on the listener’s understanding and belief in what is said.” ().

(explaining the appellate court should defer to the trial court’s factual findings based on the “trial court’s better capacity to evaluate live witnesses (as compared with the appellate court’s access only to a cold record) [[Image here]] Purvis, 144 So.3d at 927 .

We are mindful that the manifest error standard of review applies when the fact finder’s determination is based upon a credibility evaluation “for only the factfin-der can be aware of the variations in de *165 meanor and tone of voice that bear so heavily on the listener’s understanding and belief in what is said.” ().

Rosell, 549 So.2d at 844 ( ).

Perkins v. Entergy Corp., 00-1372 (La.3/23/01), ().

Perkins v. Entergy Corp., 00-1372 (La.3/23/01), ().

Chavers , 04-0992, p. 8, 902 So.2d *65 at 394 ().

Furthermore, “where two permissible views of the evidence exist, the factfinder’s choice between them cannot be manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong.” Stobart, supra

(explaining the appellate court should defer to the trial court’s factual findings based on the “trial court’s better capacity to evaluate live witnesses (as compared with the appellate court’s access only to a cold record) ...

The supreme court found that this court had substituted its factual conclusions for the WCJ’ the supreme court established the principle of deference we are required to give to the factual findings of the trier of fact—principles that the supreme court ―has consistently and scrupulously adhered to‖ during the four decades since that case was decided.

The supreme court found that this court had substituted its factual conclusions for the WCJ’ the supreme court established the principle of deference we are required to give to the factual findings of the trier of fact — principles that the supreme court “has consistently and scrupulously adhered to” during the four decades since that case was decided.

Our supreme court, ( (emphasis in Virgil), stated: as follows: “When there is evidence before the trier of fact which, upon its reasonable evaluati

Our supreme court, ( (emphasis in Virgil)), stated: as follows: “When there is evidence before the trier of fact which, upon its reasonable evaluation of credibility, furnishes a *575 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.