DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

2744 citing documents.

  • Deumite v. West Bank Contractors 343 So. 2d 289 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
  • Lucas v. Ins. Co. of North America 342 So. 2d 591 La. 1977
  • Mays v. Pico Finance Co., Inc. 339 So. 2d 382 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1977
  • Pierre v. Landry 341 So. 2d 891 La. 1977
  • Downey v. Callery 338 So. 2d 937 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1977
    is a leading case on the problem of executive officer liability.
  • Yardumian v. Beals 341 So. 2d 626 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1977
  • Labostrie v. Whitaker 342 So. 2d 249 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    and find that the testimony of Mrs. Whitaker that she looked both ways before she began crossing the intersection with the green light together with the presence of the tank truck was sufficient to furnish a reasonable factual basis for the trial court’s finding that she was not negligent.
  • Montgomery v. Breaux 338 So. 2d 314 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
  • Hunt v. Ford Motor Co. 341 So. 2d 614 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1977
    3d Cir. 1964) and *616 (La.
  • McLeod v. Woodel 341 So. 2d 1261 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
  • Parker v. Continental Ins. Co. 341 So. 2d 593 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1977
  • Moore v. Southland Corp. 340 So. 2d 703 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
  • Courville v. Castania 340 So. 2d 1106 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
  • Dawson Engineers, Inc. v. Reichhold Chemical, Inc. 340 So. 2d 1059 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    to the effect that when there is evidence before the trier of fact, which upon its reasonable evaluation as to credibility constitutes a reasonable basis for the trial court’s finding, on review the appellate court should not disturb such findings except when manifest error is shown.
  • Stewart v. National Food Stores of Louisiana, Inc. 341 So. 2d 1177 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    The standards of appellate review of facts in civil cases were set forth by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Canter v. Koehring Company, La., (1973) and reiterated in Dyson v. Gulf Modular Corporation, La., (1976).
  • Fall v. Didier 340 So. 2d 1083 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
  • All State Corp. v. Jackson 340 So. 2d 1089 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    Canter v. Koehring Company, La., (1973); Ashley v. Nissan Motor Corp. in U.S.A.
  • Michel v. Department of Public Safety, Alcoholic Beverage Control Board 341 So. 2d 1161 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    The principle of appellate review was set out by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Canter v. Koehring Company, La., (1973).
  • Thornton v. Moran 341 So. 2d 1136 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    (1st La.App., 1975), writs refused, La., .
  • Orgeron v. Badeaux 340 So. 2d 424 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    4th Cir., 1969) and the cases cited therein
  • Pertuit v. Chas. J. Munch & Sons, Inc. 340 So. 2d 675 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    Canter v. Koehring Co., La., .
  • Dieudonne v. Guidry 336 So. 2d 990 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
  • Matirne v. Wilson 336 So. 2d 960 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1976
  • Poche v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc. 339 So. 2d 1212 La. 1976
  • Singleton v. Townsend 339 So. 2d 543 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1976
  • Nolfo v. Landeche 339 So. 2d 1331 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
  • Great American Ins. Co. v. Turnage 339 So. 2d 1322 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    Canter v. Koehring Company, La., (1973).
  • Central Credit Corp. v. Cochran 339 So. 2d 1302 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
  • Palmer v. Jarvis 340 So. 2d 356 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    rehearing denied (1973).
  • Ponville v. Travelers Ins. Co. 340 So. 2d 331 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
  • Galloway v. Gaspard 340 So. 2d 579 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    Cantor v. Koehring Co., La.
  • Heckel v. Travelers Ins. Co. 340 So. 2d 363 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    Canter v. Koehring Company, La., (1973).
  • Ward v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. 339 So. 2d 1255 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
  • Billiot v. Bourg 338 So. 2d 1148 La. 1976
    Canter v. Koehring Company, La., (1973).
  • Schoeffler v. Remington Arms, Inc. 339 So. 2d 52 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
  • Sewell v. Argonaut-Southwest Ins. Co. 338 So. 2d 1208 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
  • Dyson v. Gulf Modular Corp. 338 So. 2d 1385 La. 1976
    we set forth the standards of appellate review of facts in civil cases as follows: *1390 "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 di
  • Rothring v. Travelers Indemnity Co. 338 So. 2d 1174 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    It is difficult to say, but I think one of either of those two things happened.” the court made the following observations with regard to the weight a trial judge’s opinion should be given: “ * * * [Wjhere 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 fee
  • O'Donnell v. City of New Orleans 338 So. 2d 981 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    1974); and the trial court’s findings of fact based upon its weighing of the evidence will be reversed only upon a showing of manifest error (
  • Associate Marine Divers, Inc. v. Lecler 338 So. 2d 959 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    stands for the proposition that: “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 manifes
  • Byrd v. Isgitt 338 So. 2d 374 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
    Canter v. Koehring, La., (1973).
  • Cole v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. 337 So. 2d 900 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
    However, we conclude that under the rule of Canter v. Koehring Company, La., (1973) there is a sufficient evidentiary basis to support the finding of the trial judge, based on his evaluation of credibility, that plaintiff did sustain a job-related accident on July 22, 1975.
  • Aymond v. STATE, THROUGH DEPT. OF HIGHWAYS 333 So. 2d 383 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
    prompts us to conclude that there existed at the site of this accident a patently and obviously dangerous condition and that the Department failed in its duty to adequately and sufficiently caution of this dangerous condition, which failure constituted actionable negligence which caused this accident.
  • Jamison v. Liberty Mutual Insurance 338 So. 2d 179 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    The reason for this well-settled principle of review is based not only upon the trial court’s better capacity to evaluate live witnesses (as compared with the appellate court’s access only to a cold record), but also upon the proper allocation of trial and appellate functions between the respective courts.”
  • Ardoin v. STATE, THROUGH DEPT. OF HIGHWAYS 333 So. 2d 412 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
  • Robinson v. Graves 332 So. 2d 303 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1976
  • Lewis v. St. Charles Parish Hosp. Serv. Dist. 337 So. 2d 1137 La. 1976
  • Molaison v. WEST BROS. OF THIBODAUX, LA. INC. 338 So. 2d 726 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    The standard for our review of those finding is set forth in Canter v. *729 Koehring Company, La., (1973), 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.
  • Hue v. Blanchard 337 So. 2d 1218 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
  • Macaluso v. Populis 339 So. 2d 386 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    rehearing denied (1973).