Cited by

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

2744 citing documents.

Hammond Motors, Inc. v. Glass 393 So. 2d 342 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
Dundy v. Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge 394 So. 2d 650 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
Smith v. New Orleans Public Serv., Inc. 391 So. 2d 962 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
Abadie v. Morales 391 So. 2d 974 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
articulates the standards to be applied in appellate review: "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 i
Manzanares v. AMERICAN INTERN. FOREST PRODUCTS, INC. 389 So. 2d 1142 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
Johnson v. Harry Jarred, Inc. 391 So. 2d 898 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1980
LaGraize v. Bickham 391 So. 2d 1185 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
Reck v. Stevens , above.
Merchant v. Dept. of Finance 391 So. 2d 587 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
For this reason the usual guidelines for appellate review, i. e., manifest error rule, are not applicable.
Werner v. Southern Forest Products Assoc. 391 So. 2d 63 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
See Canter v. Koehring Company, La., ; Arceneaux v. Dominque, La., .
Samanie v. Johnston Testers, Inc. 393 So. 2d 209 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
The rule of appellate review of a trial court’s as follows: *211 “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 The rule was
Sylvest v. Yates 393 So. 2d 161 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
Baker Bank & Trust Co. v. Chausse 393 So. 2d 261 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
LeGrand v. State ex rel. Department of Highways 390 So. 2d 957 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
The trial judge had an opportunity to see and hear the witnesses testify
Benedic v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. 389 So. 2d 871 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
Schwindt v. Tonglet 389 So. 2d 883 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
(1973) (1978), the trial judge’s findings of fact will not be disturbed.
Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles v. Rault 389 So. 2d 1373 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
ASHLEY-HALL, ETC. v. Bank of New Orleans 389 So. 2d 850 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
[2] Arceneaux v. Domingue, La., ; Canter v. Koehring Company, La., .
Gasquet v. Commercial Union Ins. Co. 391 So. 2d 466 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
Higginbotham v. General Motors Corp. 389 So. 2d 800 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
The standard of review in a : “When there is evidence before the trier of fact which, upon its reasonable evaluation of credibility, furnishes a reasonable *803 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.
Brown v. Farmers Land & Canal Co. 389 So. 2d 759 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
McMillan v. Travelers Ins.
Richey v. Cagle Chevrolet, Inc. 389 So. 2d 772 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
Johnson v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. 389 So. 2d 1139 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
Brown v. State 392 So. 2d 113 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
Holder v. Gill & Davidge 391 So. 2d 1220 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
Ricca v. Sagona 392 So. 2d 127 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
Erdey v. Steib 392 So. 2d 131 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
Canter v. Koehring Company, La.App., (1973).
Baltz v. Baltz 389 So. 2d 101 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
Parr v. Santa Maria Produce Co. 389 So. 2d 414 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
The trial court here necessarily found that Coatney by applying his brakes and pulling to the right had exercised “such care as is reasonably to be expected of an ordinarily prudent individual under similar facts and circumstances.” at p. 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
Bowers v. Greene 386 So. 2d 920 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
Almerico v. Highlands Ins. Co. 388 So. 2d 1176 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
[3] Canter v. Koehring Company, La., ; Arceneaux v. Domingue, La., .
Lagraize v. New Orleans Armature Works 387 So. 2d 687 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
Roussel v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. 385 So. 2d 479 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
Hebert v. Brazzel 393 So. 2d 135 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
Newman v. Dixie Sales and Service 387 So. 2d 1333 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
Quality Seafood, Inc. v. Dos Gris Seafood, Inc. 388 So. 2d 95 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
Dunn v. American Insurance Co. 388 So. 2d 119 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
Lewis v. Toledo National Insurance Co. 388 So. 2d 121 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
We are not to question the wisdom of the trial judge, but rather, (La.
Brown v. Triangle Timber, Inc. 388 So. 2d 126 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
Harkins v. Continental Oil Co. 385 So. 2d 1216 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
In Canter v. Koehring *1218 Company, the Supreme Court stated: “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.” T
Lopez v. Blue Cross of Louisiana 386 So. 2d 697 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
Clements v. Allstate Ins. Co. 383 So. 2d 1375 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
Moreover, the trial court's reasonable factual inferences from the record must be allowed to stand, and the appellate court may not substitute its own inferences, however reasonable; Canter v. Koehring Co., La.1973, .
Wall v. AMERICAN EMPLOYERS. INS. CO. 386 So. 2d 79 La. 1980
Lucas v. Deville 385 So. 2d 804 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
Thomas v. Wilkinson 387 So. 2d 642 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
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.”
Richard v. Southwest Louisiana Hospital Ass'n 383 So. 2d 83 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
We have carefully reviewed the evidence in this case, we cannot say that the jury's verdict was manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong.
Bond v. Jack 387 So. 2d 613 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
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.
Pisciotta v. Allstate Ins. Co. 385 So. 2d 1176 La. 1980
The rules of law governing a court of appeal's review of a (La.
Rodriguez v. City of New Orleans 384 So. 2d 1006 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
Sigue Trucking Inc. v. Brazen 385 So. 2d 28 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
Ackel v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. 385 So. 2d 30 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980