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.

  • Gordon v. General Motors Corp. 323 So. 2d 496 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
  • Spell v. Executive Officers, Etc., P. & W. Indus., Inc. 316 So. 2d 474 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
    It is the defendants' position that the petition fails to allege a cause of action because it does not in a (La.
  • Laborde v. Roy O. Martin Lumber Company, Inc. 316 So. 2d 440 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
  • Simmons v. Beauregard Parish School Board 315 So. 2d 883 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
    The rule requiring great weight to be given the jury's factual findings ( is not so persuasive here.
  • Tatom v. American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance 320 So. 2d 926 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
    Canter v. Koehring Company, La., (S.Ct.1973).
  • Begnaud v. Deboisblanc 321 So. 2d 373 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
    3rd Ed. 344-346.” Also particularly applicable here is the rule of appellate review 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 manifest error.” Canter v. Koehring Company, La., (1973).
  • Prince v. Travelers Ins. Co. 320 So. 2d 227 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
  • Plescia v. Dunham 319 So. 2d 812 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
    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.
  • Vaughn v. Earthly 313 So. 2d 347 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
  • HB" Buster" Hughes, Inc. v. Bernard 318 So. 2d 9 La. 1975
    Article 2315 Civil Code; Canter v. Koehring Company, La., (1973); 3 Fletcher Cyclopedia of the Law of Private Corporations, section 1135; 19 Am.Jur.2d, Corporations, section 1382.
  • MFA Mutual Insurance v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York 318 So. 2d 666 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
    “Where there is conflict in the testimony, reasonable evaluations of credibility and reasonable inferences of fact should not be disturbed upon review.”
  • Dupre v. South Central Bell Telephone Company 318 So. 2d 145 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
    Nevertheless, the rule of appellate review is that the factual findings of the trial judge will not be disturbed where supported by a reasonable evidentiary basis
  • Martin v. State, Dept. of Highways 322 So. 2d 827 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
  • Roussel v. Colonial Sugars Company 318 So. 2d 37 La. 1975
  • Francis v. Gerlach Meat Company, Inc. 319 So. 2d 534 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1975
    We are guided by the principles set forth in Ferguson v. HDE, Inc.
  • Herzog v. Badilla 317 So. 2d 213 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
    May v. Finest Foods, Inc., (La.App.
  • Collins v. Slocum 317 So. 2d 672 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
  • Morrison v. Morrison 316 So. 2d 453 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
    The language found in the opinion of Justice Tate in Canter v. Koehring Co., et al., (La.
  • Henry v. Highlands Insurance Co. 315 So. 2d 145 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
  • Springer v. Government Employees Ins. Co., Inc. 311 So. 2d 36 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1975
  • Naquin v. Maryland Casualty Company 311 So. 2d 48 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
  • Gonzales v. Southwest Mobile Homes, Inc. 309 So. 2d 780 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
  • Coleman v. Victor 314 So. 2d 412 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
    The defendant’s version is unlikely and depends upon plaintiff being able to make a ‘jackrabbit start’.” our Supreme Court held: “ .
  • Sylvester's Saddle & Leather Co. v. Adobe Western & Casual Store, Inc. 313 So. 2d 327 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
    ” Canter v. Koehring Company, La., (1973); Sears, Roebuck and Company v. Gunn, La.App., (4 Cir. 1973).
  • Brown v. Manchester Insurance & Indemnity Co. 313 So. 2d 275 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
  • Sullivan v. Rex Drilling Co. 312 So. 2d 668 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
    resolved this conflict and approved the rationale as enunciated in Adams and its progeny, and disapproved the conflicting line of decisions following Maxey .
  • Kay v. Home Indemnity Company 313 So. 2d 303 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
  • Penrod Drilling Co. v. Langlinais 312 So. 2d 368 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
    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.”
  • Monk v. Veillon 312 So. 2d 377 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
    Veillon is responsible for the tort of his employee.
  • Washington v. Degelos 312 So. 2d 918 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
    In Canter v. Koehring Company, La., , the Court said: "With regard to the personal (as contrasted with technical or vicarious) fault, personal liability cannot be imposed upon the officer, agent, or employee simply because of his general administrative responsibility for performance of some function of the employment.
  • Duray v. Continental Insurance Company 311 So. 2d 491 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1975
  • Reggans v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company 308 So. 2d 898 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1975
  • Bertrand v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company 306 So. 2d 343 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
  • Miller v. Chicago Insurance Company 306 So. 2d 355 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
    and the cases following the same principles of appellate review.
  • Fontenot v. Ludeau 309 So. 2d 772 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
    at 724 (La.1973), the trial court is allocated the function of making factual determinations.
  • Tumminello v. Spencer 309 So. 2d 811 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
    merous to here mention, to be proved at trial.’ There was no proof adduced at the trial of other defects which would bring about redhibition or reduction of the purchase price.” Although there is some conflict in the testimony, there is a reasonable evidentiary basis for the finding of fact of the trial judge as to those defects, which he expressly discussed above, Canter v. Kehring Company, La., (1973).
  • Schwartzberg v. Clark-Dunbar, Inc. 309 So. 2d 754 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
    We conclude there is a reasonable evi-dentiary basis to support the factual finding by the trial judge that plaintiff was negligent, and that this finding should not be disturbed on appellate review, Canter v. Koehring Company, La., (1973).
  • Followed Alexander v. C. M. Penn & Sons 310 So. 2d 694 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
    In reviewing this case, : “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.
  • Lyle v. National Surety Corporation 304 So. 2d 743 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
    The issues are: (1) Did King and/or Tull breach any personal duty owed to the plaintiff under the rules set forth in Canter v. Koehring Company, La., (1973)?
  • Foxworth v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company 308 So. 2d 348 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1975
    (1973), wherein they 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."
  • Leleux v. Lumbermen's Mutual Insurance 308 So. 2d 527 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
  • Parish of St. Landry ex rel. Goudeau v. Veillon 308 So. 2d 830 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
    This court should not disturb reasonable factual determinations made by the trier of fact, We conclude that LSA-R.S.
  • Lake Charles Tile & Carpet Co. v. DeKoning 307 So. 2d 757 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
    Under this evaluation of the testimony, there is clearly a reasonable factual basis for the trial court’s finding, Canter v. Koehring Company, La., (1973).
  • Allen v. Riley Mobile Home Sales, Inc. 307 So. 2d 773 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
    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.
  • Lucas v. Insurance Co. of North America 326 So. 2d 525 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
    The Court finds him credible and believes he has made a courageous and good faith effort to rehabilitate himself.” I feel that the evidence in this case “furnishes a reasonable factual basis for the trial court’s finding”, and I am unwilling to concur with my brothers of the majority in *534 finding manifest error.
  • Bloodworth v. Bloodworth 306 So. 2d 812 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
    Where there is conflict in the testimony, reasonable evaluations of credibility and reasonable inferences of fact should not be disturbed upon review, Canter v. Koehring Company, La., (1973).
  • Weems v. Moss 309 So. 2d 763 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
  • Aetna Life & Casualty Co. v. Finley's Sporting Goods, Inc. 306 So. 2d 383 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
    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
  • Iverson v. JAHNCKE SERVICES, INCORPORATED 301 So. 2d 886 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1974
    : "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.
  • Cacibauda v. Gaiennie 305 So. 2d 572 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1974
    The criteria we apply is that enunciated in Canter v. Koehring Company, La., (1973): "1.