DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

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.

  • Dunbar v. Griffin 331 So. 2d 36 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
  • Gall v. International Export Packers of Louisiana Inc. 330 So. 2d 644 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    In the appellate courts, “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.” Canter v. Koehring Co., La.1973, .
  • Ogden v. Ogden 331 So. 2d 592 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    Canter v. Koehring Company, La., (1973), rehearing denied (1973).
  • Robins v. City of Baton Rouge 331 So. 2d 79 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    sets out the principle of 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 for the trial court’s finding, on review the appellate court should not disturb this factual findin
  • Valley Mills v. Daniels 331 So. 2d 100 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    Canter v. Koehring Company, La., (1973), rehearing denied (1973).
  • Washington v. King 331 So. 2d 112 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    Canter v. Koehring Company, La., (1973), reh.
  • Jackson v. Parish of East Baton Rouge 331 So. 2d 64 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    In view of the foregoing, we cannot say that the trier of fact committed manifest error
  • Wages v. Riddle 330 So. 2d 126 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    The trial court’s findings will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of manifest error ( (La.
  • Wehr v. Vance 343 So. 2d 1081 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
  • Prestenbach v. Sentry Insurance 329 So. 2d 840 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    Canter v. Koehring, La., ; Veazey v. Nassar, La.
  • Lawless v. Gulf South Title Insurance Agency, Inc. 329 So. 2d 879 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
  • Rough v. Landry 328 So. 2d 768 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    Canter v. Koehring Company, La., (1973), reh.
  • Comeaux v. Sims 328 So. 2d 816 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    However, in this case, the trial court could validly find from the testimony adduced, including Comeaux’s own testimony, that he was contributorily negligent; as a reviewing court we must give great weight to the factual conclusions of the trier of facts and reasonable inferences of fact should not be disturbed upon review; (La.
  • Campanella v. State, Department of Highways 328 So. 2d 798 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    Canter v. Koehring Company, La., .
  • Cooley v. Slocum 326 So. 2d 491 La. 1976
  • Mackbee v. Ford Motor Co. 327 So. 2d 654 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    See, e. g., ; May v. Finest Foods, Inc., La.App., .
  • Weaver v. Fleetwood Homes of Mississippi, Inc. 327 So. 2d 172 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
  • Constance v. Smith 326 So. 2d 905 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
  • Owen v. Owen 325 So. 2d 283 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1976
  • Golz v. Children's Bureau of New Orleans, Inc. 326 So. 2d 865 La. 1976
    Canter v. Koehring Company, La., (1973); Ginlee v. Helg, 251 La.
  • Richards v. Travelers Insurance Co. 327 So. 2d 620 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    To be sure, plaintiff’s evidence is substantial and it is persuasive, but it does not compel a (La.App.
  • Hall v. Kaiser Aluminum Co. 329 So. 2d 251 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1976
  • Lemoine v. Bunkie General Hospital 326 So. 2d 618 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
  • Breaux v. State 326 So. 2d 481 La. 1976
  • Toomer Electrical Co., Inc. v. Humble Oil & Refin. Co. 321 So. 2d 827 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    We do not feel that any manifest error was committed by the trial judge in reaching his conclusions and, therefore, we affirm his decision; Papania v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., writ denied, (1974).
  • Keyser v. Triplett 322 So. 2d 294 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
  • Alexander v. Gottwald 325 So. 2d 713 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    rformed safely by an operator exercising reasonable care in the performance of his job who was observing these simple and basic precautions, together with the general rule — if you smell vinyl chloride, get out.” (Reasons for Judgment, p. 72) I. The legal requirements necessary to impose liability upon executive or supervisory personnel have "
  • Wilkinson v. Travelers Insurance Co. 330 So. 2d 351 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    In Canter v. Koehring Company, La., (1973), rehearing denied (1973), Mn Justice Tate 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 manif
  • Devillier v. Traders & General Insurance Company 321 So. 2d 55 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
  • Richard v. Lamb Industries, Inc. 325 So. 2d 770 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
  • Cagle v. Spade Drilling Co., Inc. 325 So. 2d 354 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
    our Supreme Court set out the criteria for imposing individual liability upon executive officers for the breach of employment-imposed duties.
  • Thibodeaux v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. 325 So. 2d 318 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
  • LaCour v. Colonial Life & Accident Insurance 324 So. 2d 458 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
    Bertrand v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, (La.App.
  • Rogers v. Murphy 324 So. 2d 544 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
    Bertrand v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, (La.App.
  • State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Smith 324 So. 2d 852 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
  • Foret & Associates, Inc. v. Standard Fittings Co. 324 So. 2d 901 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
  • Chelette v. Travelers Insurance Co. 324 So. 2d 915 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
    : “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.
  • Arabie v. Travelers Insurance Co. 325 So. 2d 340 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
    Bertrand v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, (La.App.
  • Landry v. City of Lafayette 324 So. 2d 550 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
  • Succession of Fuselier 325 So. 2d 296 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
    the Supreme Court clearly defined the limits of appellate factual review: ".
  • Loescher v. Parr 324 So. 2d 441 La. 1975
  • Followed Ashley v. Nissan Motor Corp. in USA 321 So. 2d 868 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
    : "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 *877 the absence of manifest error.
  • Mullins v. Travelers Ins. Co. 324 So. 2d 613 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1975
  • Daigle v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. 323 So. 2d 186 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
  • Cote v. Krauss Company, Inc. 323 So. 2d 867 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
  • Phillips v. Williams 323 So. 2d 808 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
  • Hoover v. Beatty 323 So. 2d 490 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
    Our Supreme Court has given us a setting out the principle of appellate review of facts as follows, on page 724 thereof: "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
  • Wheat v. Seng 322 So. 2d 863 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
    Canter v. Koehring Co., La., (1973).
  • Graver v. Materials Evaluation Laboratory, Inc. 323 So. 2d 254 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
    Our Supreme Court has given us a carefully considered opinion in Canter v. Koehring Company, La., (1973) setting out the principle of 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 for the trial court’s finding, on review the appellate court should not disturb this factual finding
  • Couto v. Oms 319 So. 2d 518 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1975