Cited by

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

2744 citing documents.

Jerrl L. Thompson v. Haralampos Rizos La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
Bobby C. Moore v. Succession of Patricia Gay Bruce Moore La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
Moore v. Succession of Moore 116 So. 3d 18 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
Marti v. City of New Orleans 115 So. 3d 541 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
The “bedrock principle” that an appellate court must give deference to the trier of fact’s factual findings, was reiterated in Marange v. Custom Metal Fabricators, Inc., 11-2678, pp. 7-8 (La.7/2/12), .
Steve Thibodeaux, Indiv. and D/B/A C & B Construction v. Kaufman Trailers, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
Charlotte Franklin v. Calcasieu Parish School Board La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
An appellate court cannot reverse a WCJ’s factual findings that are based on a reasonable credibility evaluation if the record “furnishes [a] reasonable factual basis for the trial court’s finding.” Marange, 93 So.3d at 1258 ().
Franklin v. Calcasieu Parish School Board 108 So. 3d 907 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
An appellate court cannot reverse a WCJ’s factual findings that are based on a reasonable credibility evaluation if the record “furnishes [a] reasonable factual basis for the trial court’s finding.” Marange, 93 So.3d at 1258 ().
Thibodeaux v. Kaufman Trailers, Inc. 108 So. 3d 1283 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
of proof, a credibility determination can be implied from that finding An appellate court cannot reverse a trial court’s factual findings that are based on a reasonable credibility evaluation if the record “furnishes a reasonable factual basis for the trial court’s finding.” Marange v. Custom Metal Fabricators, Inc., 11-2678, p. 7 (La.7/2/12), ().
Waguespack v. Sentry Select Insurance Co. 105 So. 3d 880 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Debra Goutierrez v. Octa Goutierrez La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
“[F]actual findings of the trier of fact are entitled to great weight on appeal and, when there is a conflict in testimony, reasonable inferences of credibility and reasonable inferences of fact made and drawn by the trier of fact are not to be disturbed on appeal.” ().
Goutierrez v. Goutierrez 102 So. 3d 1047 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
“[Fjactual findings of the trier of fact are entitled to great weight on appeal and, when there is a conflict in testimony, reasonable inferences of credibility and reasonable inferences of fact made and drawn by the trier of fact are not to be disturbed on appeal.” ().
Nina Skinner v. State of Louisiana, Dotd La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
Perkins v. Entergy Corp., 00–1372 (La.3/23/01), reh’g denied, 4/27/01 () (superseded by statute on other grounds).
Marange v. Custom Metal Fabricators, Inc. 93 So. 3d 1253 La. 2012
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 the
Oscar Narcisse, Jr. v. Ann Sheree Nicole Gray La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
Bloxom v. City of Shreveport 103 So. 3d 383 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
Succession of Horrell 89 So. 3d 1267 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
STANDARD OF REVIEW “ ‘[T]he appellate court should not disturb’ ” factual findings “ ‘In [sic] the absence of manifest error.’ ”
State ex rel. T.M. 88 So. 3d 1228 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
4 Cir. 10/13/10), -932 ().
Dwight Johnson v. Jonathan Smith La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
Johnson v. Smith 86 So. 3d 874 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Twiner v. Dinvaut 90 So. 3d 1107 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Michael Guidry v. Keith Broussard La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
Roberta Broussard v. Stine Lumber Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
the supreme court defined the standard to be used in appellate review of facts as follows: When there is evidence before the trier of fact which, upon its reasonable evaluation of credibility, furnishes a reasonable factual basis 7
Broussard v. Stine Lumber Co. 82 So. 3d 1274 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
the supreme court de *1279 fined the standard to be used in appellate review of facts as follows: When there is evidence before the trier of fact which, upon its reasonable evaluation of credibility, furnishes a reasonable factual basis 18for the trial court’s finding, on review the appellate court sho
Eunice M. Guidry v. Allstate Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
Perkins v. Entergy Corp., 00-1372 (La.3/23/01), reh’g denied, 4/27/01 () (superseded by statute on other grounds).
Guidry v. Allstate Insurance Co. 83 So. 3d 91 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
Perkins v. Entergy Corp., 00-1372 (La.3/23/01), , reh’g denied, 4/27/01 () (superseded by statute on other grounds).
Bobby Abshire v. Continental Casualty Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
State Ex Rel. Dm 80 So. 3d 18 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2011
State ex rel. of D.M. 80 So. 3d 18 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
Carl R. Guidry, Et Ux. v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
Guidry v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 74 So. 3d 1276 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
Ohm Lounge, L.L.C. v. Royal St. Charles Hotel, L.L.C. 75 So. 3d 471 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
John Goulas v. B & B Oil Field Services, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
“[W]here two permissible views of the evidence exist, the factfinder’s choice between them cannot be manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong.” Stobart v. State, through DOTD, ().
John Goulas and Vernon Wilkins v. B & B Oil Field Services, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
“[W]here two permissible views of the evidence exist, the factfinder’s choice between them cannot be manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong.” Stobart v. State, through DOTD, ().
Goulas v. B & B Oilfield Services, Inc. 69 So. 3d 750 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
“[Wjhere two permissible views of the evidence exist, the factfinder’s choice between them cannot be manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong.” Stobart v. State, through DOTD, ().
LeBlanc v. PYNES 69 So. 3d 1273 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
It is well settled that an appellate court may not set aside a trial court’s finding of fact “in the absence of manifest error or unless it is clearly |7wrong.” see also, Sevier v. United States Fidelity & Guar.
McGlothlin v. Christus St. Patrick Hospital 65 So. 3d 1218 La. 2011
Becker v. Murphy Oil Corp. 70 So. 3d 885 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
Markel Domino v. City of Crowley Police Department La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
Domino v. CROWLEY CITY POLICE DEPT. 65 So. 3d 289 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
Wooley v. Lucksinger 61 So. 3d 507 La. 2011
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.
Eileen Laday v. John Doe, Lafayette City-Parish Consolidated Government La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
LADAY v. Doe 59 So. 3d 516 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
Reed, Inc. v. C & E Supply Co., Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
“Thus, where two permissible views of the evidence exist, the factfinder’s choice between them cannot be manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong.” Stobart, 617 So.2d at 883 ().
Bridges v. PRODUCTION OPERATORS, INC. 53 So. 3d 662 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Under the manifest error rule, an appellate court must give great weight to the trial court’s factual conclusions, and “where two permissible views of the evidence exist, the factfinder’s choice between them cannot be manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong.” Id.().
Dahan Novelties & Co. v. Ohio Casualty Insurance Co. 51 So. 3d 129 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
The trial court has a “better capacity to evaluate live witnesses.”
State ex rel. D.R. 50 So. 3d 927 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Guillot v. Daimlerchrysler Corp. 50 So. 3d 173 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Williams v. Stewart 46 So. 3d 266 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
red to “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.’ ” Dixon , 02-1364 at p. 9, 842 So.2d at 485 ().
Scaglione v. Juneau 45 So. 3d 191 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2010
Becker , 03-2493, p. 8, 854 So.2d at 870 .
Seals v. Thurmond 43 So. 3d 322 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010