Cited by

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

2744 citing documents.

Jolivette v. Safeco Ins. Co. 379 So. 2d 1213 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
Juneau v. Bordelon 380 So. 2d 208 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
Authement's Ornamental Iron Works, Inc. v. Reisfeld 376 So. 2d 1061 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
Arceneaux v. *1066 Domingue
Hall v. Houston General Ins. Co. 377 So. 2d 561 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
dictates that we must give great weight to the trial court's factual conclusions and should not disturb his findings in the absence of manifest error.
Ernst v. HH Burstein Enterprises, Inc. 379 So. 2d 852 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
Arceneaux v. Domingue, La., (1978); and Canter v. Koehring Company, La., (1973).
Walker v. Gauthier 379 So. 2d 861 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
we are mandated not to disturb factual findings of the trial court in the absence of manifest error provided the record as a whole establishes such findings are not clearly wrong.
Ragas v. Argonaut Southwest Ins. Co. 379 So. 2d 822 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
Dupuy v. Tilley 380 So. 2d 634 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
In discussing the issues of this case, we must keep in mind the pronouncements of this court in Dupree v. Pechinay Saint Gobain Company, et al., , February 12, 1979, wherein this court held that before examining the evidence, a reviewing court must give great weight to factual conclusions of the trier of fact.
Pradia v. St. Patrick Hospital of Lake Charles 378 So. 2d 576 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
Peloquin v. Calcasieu Parish Police Jury 378 So. 2d 560 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
Sorapuru v. Jeffers 378 So. 2d 524 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1979
we will not disturb the finding that plaintiff paid $560.
Lucien v. Lucien 378 So. 2d 518 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
Billiot v. Rivere 378 So. 2d 512 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
our Supreme Court said: “ <* * * gtated 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 r
McCullough v. Delight Distributing & Sales, Inc. 378 So. 2d 205 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
Mullen v. Schwegmann Bros. Giant Super Market, Inc. 378 So. 2d 510 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
Petrus v. Guin 378 So. 2d 1016 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1979
George Engine Co. v. Southern Shipbuilding Corp. 376 So. 2d 1040 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
Johnson v. Morton Salt Co. 377 So. 2d 549 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
JB LaHaye Farms, Inc. v. La. Dept. of Highways 377 So. 2d 1286 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
Brown v. State Mut. Life Ins. Co. 377 So. 2d 355 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
Recherche, Inc. v. Jewelry Jungle, Inc. 377 So. 2d 1329 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
Price v. Emile Babst Co. 377 So. 2d 903 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
the 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.
Cheatham v. City of New Orleans 378 So. 2d 369 La. 1979
Lazybug Shops, Inc. v. American Dist. Telegraph 374 So. 2d 183 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1979
Smedes-Jardine & Co. v. Romero 376 So. 2d 333 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
Ardoin v. Evangeline Parish Sch. Bd. 376 So. 2d 372 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
Superior Oil Co. v. Van Breemen 378 So. 2d 444 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
Ryle v. Baton Rouge General Hospital 376 So. 2d 1024 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
Holden v. Straughn 376 So. 2d 1292 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1979
O'ROURKE v. Tracy 375 So. 2d 747 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1979
Osby v. Harris 375 So. 2d 181 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1979
Manzella v. Jones 374 So. 2d 174 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
Canter v. Koehring Company, La., ; Arceneaux v. Domingue, La., .
Laurendine v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. 374 So. 2d 182 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
1973, , we are unable to supplant the trial judge as the evaluater of credibility — and we add that there is also some improbability to the contradictory supposition that a 15-year-old boy would concoct and pursue into court a false story of a bus accident (probably just to explain why he got home so late from school).
Levine v. Levine 373 So. 2d 1380 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1979
Koerner & Lambert v. Allstate Ins. Co. 374 So. 2d 179 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1979
NOTES [1] See Canter v. Koehring Company, La., .
Broyles v. Yarbrough 374 So. 2d 705 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
ERROR NO. 1 this court must find that there is manifest error in the findings of fact by the trial court before there can be a reversal.
Thompson v. New Orleans Public Belt RR 373 So. 2d 1312 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1979
The Louisiana standard for appellate review of fact, (La.
Payton v. Travelers Ins. Co. 373 So. 2d 1324 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1979
Harris v. State, Through Huey P. Long Hospital 371 So. 2d 1221 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
Red River Realty, Inc. v. Relmm Corp. 372 So. 2d 792 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
Dupree v. Pechinay Saint Gobain Co. 369 So. 2d 1075 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
Before examining the evidence in this case, a reviewing court must give great weight to factual conclusions of the trier of fact.
Moran v. Willard E. Robertson Corp. 372 So. 2d 758 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1979
Brasher v. Brasher 372 So. 2d 752 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1979
LeNy v. Friedman 372 So. 2d 721 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1979
Case v. Arrow Trucking Co. 372 So. 2d 670 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
Quality Transport, Inc. v. Younger Bros., Inc. 372 So. 2d 630 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
In Arceneaux the Supreme Court noted, what it termed, a “widespread misunderstanding” concerning the standard of appellate review of facts vis-a-vis the doctrine of manifest error.
Barcelona v. Highway Express, Inc. 372 So. 2d 612 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
As to the corporate president we reverse on a holding that plaintiff did not prove that his injuries were caused by any breach by the president of a personal duty to attend to the safety of this interstate corporation’s work activities; see Canter v. Koehring Co., La.1973, .
Nine v. Harper 371 So. 2d 320 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
Followed DiVincenti v. Desforges 372 So. 2d 606 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1979
states the basic premise we follow in reviewing a judgment based on factual conclusions, namely, credibility findings *608 supported by the record should not be disturbed on appeal.
Boudoin v. Schwegmann Bros. Giant Supermarket 371 So. 2d 370 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1979