Cited by

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

2744 citing documents.

Sims v. Sims 422 So. 2d 618 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
Bartlett v. DOCTORS HOSP. OF TIOGA 422 So. 2d 660 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
this court finds that the trial judge was not clearly wrong in this regard.
Coleman v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. 422 So. 2d 609 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Arceneaux v. Domingue, writ granted, on remand, (La.App.
Williamson-Dickie Apparel Manufacturing Co. v. Hanger, Inc. 422 So. 2d 602 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Valsin v. Bernard 422 So. 2d 699 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
3rd Cir.1981), writ denied
Vial v. South Central Bell Telephone 423 So. 2d 1233 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1982
Billa v. Billa 423 So. 2d 1231 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Barras v. Touzet's Inc. 423 So. 2d 1239 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Allan v. P.F. Collier, Inc. 423 So. 2d 1251 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Dileo v. Cadow 422 So. 2d 547 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
It should be noted that the contract was executed on a Roy Cadow Real Estate form, and is entitled, “Agreement to Purchase or Sell.” findings of fact in the trial court must be given considerable credence, particularly when the findings involve credibility of witnesses.
Aleem v. AABCO Contractors, Inc. 422 So. 2d 1293 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Concerning a trial judge’s estimate of a witness’ credibility, we are admonished to follow the well-known dictate of Canter v. Koehring, Co., wherein it was stated: “...
London v. Bell 422 So. 2d 260 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
BONNET, ETC. v. Slaughter 422 So. 2d 499 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
Brown v. Lykes Bros. SS Co., Inc. 422 So. 2d 213 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
Hill v. Louisiana State Department of Highways 426 So. 2d 210 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Marinovic v. New Orleans Police Department 422 So. 2d 226 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Britsch v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. 422 So. 2d 255 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Smith v. Schwary 422 So. 2d 236 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Since this is a factual dispute, our review of the trial court’s that is, we will accord great deference to the trial court’s evaluation of the witnesses’ credibility and will leave the judgment intact unless we find manifest error as to the dispositive findings of fact.
Wittenberg v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. 422 So. 2d 252 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
“When there is evidence before the trier of fact which, upon its reasonable evaluation of credibility, furnishes a reason *255 able basis for the trial courts finding, on review the appellate court should not disturb this factual finding in the absence of manifest error.”
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Hoerner 426 So. 2d 205 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
Pilipovich v. New Orleans Public Service 422 So. 2d 262 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
Alphonso v. Alphonso 422 So. 2d 210 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
Maxwell v. Gibson 421 So. 2d 1175 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
: "[w]here there is conflict in the testimony, reasonable evaluations of credibility and reasonable inferences of fact should not be disturbed upon review, even though the appellate court may feel that its own evaluations and inferences are as reasonable.
Henson v. Handee Corp. 421 So. 2d 1134 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
Hollis v. Travelers Ins.
Thornton v. Pedersen 421 So. 2d 465 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Arceneaux v. Domingue, writ granted, on remand, (La.App.
Hoyt v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 420 So. 2d 1254 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Arceneaux v. Domingue, writ granted, on remand, (La.App.
Bankers & Shippers Insurance Co. of New York v. Holiday Rambler Corp. 420 So. 2d 1350 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
O'Brien Flying Service, Inc. v. Bell 421 So. 2d 964 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Coiled Tubing, Inc. v. Morris 420 So. 2d 1267 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
App. 3rd Cir.1980), this Court reiterated the law concerning appellate review of factual issues: "
LeBlanc v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc. 420 So. 2d 1320 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
Howard v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. 420 So. 2d 1190 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1982
Naylor v. La. Dept. of Public Highways 423 So. 2d 674 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
an appellate court should not disturb a finding of fact unless it is manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong.
Massey v. Cunningham 420 So. 2d 1036 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Chabert v. City of Westwego Police Pension & Relief Board 423 So. 2d 1190 La. 1982
Nonetheless the diagnosis was made, the ex-traparamidal seizures have been corrected and the therapy he is now receiving is of a very beneficial nature insofar as the persistent and constant pain of which he was experiencing is gradually subsiding.” is 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 fi
Loyd v. Ecko Fabricating Co. 433 So. 2d 1063 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Bork v. Sells 420 So. 2d 1039 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Creely v. Jack E. Molesworth, Inc. 420 So. 2d 1201 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
White v. Falgoust 420 So. 2d 1155 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
at page 724: “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 ...” We find no manife
Mollere v. Aguilar 422 So. 2d 452 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
(and cases cited therein), wherein it is stated: “When there is evidence before the trier of fact which, upon its reasonable evaluation of credibility, furnishes a reasona *454 ble factual basis for the trial court’s finding, on review the appellate court should not disturb this factual finding in the a
Josephs v. Austin 420 So. 2d 1181 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1982
Tate v. Jacobs Engineering Co. 421 So. 2d 321 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Achord v. HE Weise Const. Co. 422 So. 2d 1248 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Vance v. Emerson 420 So. 2d 1032 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1982
Carmadelle v. Koch-Ellis Marine Contractors 420 So. 2d 1029 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1982
NOTES [1] See, e.g., Canter v. Koehring Company, La., .
Bell v. Badger Dredging, Inc. 420 So. 2d 1197 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1982
Williams v. Boh Bros. Construction Co. 420 So. 2d 999 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
‘Stated another way, the reviewing 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 though the appellate court may feel that its own evaluations and inferences are as reasonable.’
Robinson v. FW Woolworth Co. 420 So. 2d 737 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
Creole Sales, Inc. v. H & H Utilities Service Co. 420 So. 2d 746 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Cardoza v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. 420 So. 2d 756 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Rapp v. Rapp 420 So. 2d 716 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982