Cited by

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

2744 citing documents.

Harrington v. Upchurch 331 So. 2d 506 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
Canter v. Koehring Company, La., (1973).
Windham v. Security Ins. Co. of Hartford 337 So. 2d 577 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1976
Texhoma Contractors v. SHIPBLDG. CORP. 337 So. 2d 584 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1976
[4] See Canter v. Koehring Company, La.App., .
Pittman v. Roberts 337 So. 2d 541 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
Addison v. Checker Cab Co. 337 So. 2d 592 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
we must therefore affirm on the principle that the evidence furnishes a reasonable factual basis for the trial court’s finding and that a reasonable inference should not be disturbed upon review.
Distinguished Norris v. State 337 So. 2d 257 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
See Doucet v. State, Department of Highways, supra
Lalande v. Index Geophysical Survey Corp. 336 So. 2d 1054 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
Bruno v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. 337 So. 2d 241 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
Loewer v. Vanderhider 336 So. 2d 1011 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
Walker v. State ex rel. Department of Highways 337 So. 2d 250 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
Carter v. Roy O. Martin Industries, Inc. 336 So. 2d 1002 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
Motors Insurance Corporation v. Melder 336 So. 2d 954 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
as follows: "* * 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 ow
Walker v. Travelers Insurance Co. 336 So. 2d 938 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
Bankston v. National Corp. Services, Inc. 336 So. 2d 936 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
Magee v. Engineered Equipment Co. 336 So. 2d 940 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
present condition, generally confirmed by Dr. Russo and Dr. Riordan, supports the trial court’s award
Morris v. Guidry 335 So. 2d 75 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
In Canter v. Koehring Co., La., (1973—Sup.Ct.), it was said: “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.
Cane River Needle Art v. Reon, Inc. 335 So. 2d 751 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
Canter v. Koehring, La., (1973).
Urania Enterprises, Inc. v. Travelers Indemnity Co. 335 So. 2d 757 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
Canter v. Koehring, La., (1973).
Babineaux v. PERNIE BAILEY DRILLING CO. 335 So. 2d 747 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
Aucoin v. Fontenot 334 So. 2d 773 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
Crooks v. Belden Corporation 334 So. 2d 725 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
Charles v. Sewerage & Water Board of New Orleans 331 So. 2d 216 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1976
Gulfcoast Newspapers, Inc. v. Cart 331 So. 2d 177 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
Fielding v. Casualty Reciprocal Exchange 331 So. 2d 186 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
Foreman v. Kent 336 So. 2d 271 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
Hickman v. Sumrall 335 So. 2d 479 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
Consequently, the court finds that Mrs. Hickman’s injuries were causally related to the accident.” Where there is evidence to support the trial court’s conclusions of facts, such conclusions will not be disturbed in the absence of manifest error
New York Life Insurance Co. v. Gulf States Utilities Co. 336 So. 2d 320 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
“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.” Canter v. Koehring Company, La., (1973).
Averett v. Alexander 336 So. 2d 227 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
This result is in accordance with the standard of review of facts for appellate courts as set out in Canter v. Koehring Company, La., (1973).
Boudreaux v. Falsetta 345 So. 2d 514 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
Canter v. Koehring Com *517 pany, La., , and authorities therein cited.
Bank of Louisiana in New Orleans v. Campbell 329 So. 2d 235 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1976
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc. 330 So. 2d 649 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
the Louisiana *660 Supreme Court laid down the conditions under which a breach of an employmentagency duty would give rise to a cause of action against the individual breaching such duty by a third person injured as a result of the breach.
4626 CORPORATION v. Merriam 329 So. 2d 885 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
White v. Rimmer & Garrett, Inc. 328 So. 2d 686 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
Guidry ex rel. Guidry v. IGF, Inc. 332 So. 2d 515 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
Canter v. Koehring Company, La.App., (1973).
Dunman v. Kroger Co. 333 So. 2d 427 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
The reason for this 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.”
Domangue v. Phillips 333 So. 2d 309 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
Mulcahy v. State ex rel. Department of Corrections 334 So. 2d 509 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
Louisiana National Bank v. Triple R. Contractors, Inc. 334 So. 2d 516 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
Canter v. Koebring Company, La., (1973).
Bailey v. Lowery 334 So. 2d 482 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
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 *485 in the absence of manifest error.
Deshotels v. Statewide Trailer Sales 333 So. 2d 259 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
Goodeaux v. Martin Hospital, Inc. 333 So. 2d 717 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1976
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.
Cousins v. Henry 332 So. 2d 506 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1976
Matthew Gustain V. Aetna Casualty and Surety Company 333 So. 2d 369 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
The trial court’s written reasons for judgment are quoted in full as follows: “It is the opinion of the Court that the negligence of the Plaintiff, Matthew Gustain, was the sole cause of his accident.” A summary of the evidence is offered in light of the Supreme Court’s
Smith v. Vance 333 So. 2d 695 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
“[Where] 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.
Reggio v. Louisiana Gas Service Co. 333 So. 2d 395 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1976
Dunker v. Finance Funds Group, Inc. 333 So. 2d 331 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
1974); Carter v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc., Town of Slidell v. Temple, 246 La.
Hornsby v. Ray 327 So. 2d 146 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
Vallee v. Richardson 331 So. 2d 201 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
the Louisiana Supreme Court clearly defined the principle of appellate review of facts to be 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 sho
State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Drost 330 So. 2d 393 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
Canter v. Koehring Company, La., (1973).
Landry v. Hazelwood & Santillo, Inc. 330 So. 2d 683 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
Canter v. Koehring, La., (S.Ct.1973).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by