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.

  • Spreen v. Gibbs 305 So. 2d 494 La. 1974
    we held that an appellate court should not disturb the factual findings of the trial court in the absence of manifest error.
  • Carter v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. 305 So. 2d 481 La. 1974
  • Wiley v. Travelers Insurance Company 300 So. 2d 555 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1974
    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.
  • Kramer v. Louisiana Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance 304 So. 2d 710 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
    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.
  • White v. Washington 303 So. 2d 861 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
    See: Canter v. Koehring Company, La., (1973); (La.App.
  • Mancuso v. Kramer 303 So. 2d 874 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
    Canter v. Koehring Company, La., (1973); (La.App.
  • Dinvaut v. Phoenix of Hartford Insurance 302 So. 2d 294 La. 1974
  • Haynes v. Baton Rouge General Hospital 298 So. 2d 149 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
    ( [Lousiana Supreme Court, 1973]) We recently recognized the applicability of this touchstone of appellate review in affirming a defendant jury verdict in a medical malpractice case, see Busby v. St.
  • Huval v. Dupuis 302 So. 2d 636 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1974
  • C. J. Richard Lumber Co. v. Cormier 302 So. 2d 734 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
    and the cases cited therein.
  • Lumbard v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Company 302 So. 2d 394 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
    Canter v. Koehring Company, La., (1973); Reech v. Bodin, La.App., (1st Cir. 1973).
  • Hadrick v. Diaz 302 So. 2d 345 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
  • Dewese v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company 295 So. 2d 574 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1974
  • Simmons v. Travelers Insurance Company 295 So. 2d 550 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1974
    Foster and Hancock, (1973).
  • Gradney v. Vancouver Plywood Co., Inc. 299 So. 2d 347 La. 1974
    See Canter v. Koehring Company, La., (1973); Ginlee v. Helg, 251 La.
  • Maranto v. Maranto 297 So. 2d 704 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
    In the case of Canter v. Koehring Company, La., (1973), with Justice Tate as the author of the opinion, 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 t
  • Torrey v. Chauvin 297 So. 2d 757 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
    See: Canter v. Koehring Company, La., (1973).
  • Busby v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company 290 So. 2d 701 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
    As the Supreme Court recently said in Canter v. Koehring Company, La., at 724 (1973): "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.
  • Bosworth v. Restivo 295 So. 2d 15 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
    Canter v. Koehring Company, La., (1973).
  • Guidry v. Messina 294 So. 2d 559 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1974
  • Lowenburg v. Labor Pool of America, Inc. 296 So. 2d 846 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1974
    Our State Supreme Court has recently given us a careful, thorough, and had made it clear that when there is evidence before the trier of fact which, upon its reasonable evaluation of credibility, furnishes a reasonable factual bases for trial court's finding, the appellate court, on review, should not disturb this factual finding in absence of manifest error.
  • Pfister v. Phoenix of Hartford Insurance Company 290 So. 2d 362 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1974
    An executive officer's responsibilities are set out in the recent case of Canter v. Koehring Company, La., at page 721 (1973).
  • Rodriguez v. Trebitz 304 So. 2d 396 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
  • Abshire v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Ins. Co. 289 So. 2d 545 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1974
  • Harris v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 293 So. 2d 195 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
  • LeBrane v. Lewis 292 So. 2d 216 La. 1974
  • Camet v. Guillot 291 So. 2d 438 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1974
  • Parker v. Haik 297 So. 2d 551 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
  • Bono v. Cousins 291 So. 2d 904 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1974
    A trial court's "reasonable evaluations of credibility and reasonable inferences of fact should not be disturbed upon review * * *"; Canter v. Koehring, La.1973, .
  • Jones v. Simonson 292 So. 2d 251 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1974
    "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"; (Sup.Ct.1973).
  • Galloway v. Employers Mutual of Wausau 286 So. 2d 676 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1974
    These cases, more fully discussed later, are Canter v. Koehring Co., La., and Fontenot v. Insurance Company of America, La., .
  • Grubb v. Employers Mutual Liability Insurance 289 So. 2d 885 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
    ” Prior to very recent Louisiana Supreme Court decisions, , , there was a conflict between the various circuit courts of appeal with regard to the precise duty owed by executive officers, agents and/or employees to fellow employees.
  • Tyler v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. 289 So. 2d 893 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1974
    Canter v. Koehring Company, La.App., (1973).
  • Beach v. Winn Dixie, Inc. 289 So. 2d 830 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
    See Canter v. Koehring Co., La., .
  • Fabre v. Travelers Insurance Company 286 So. 2d 459 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
    Plaintiff also argues that these individual defendants breached their duty to provide him a safe place to work and cites the recent case of Canter v. Koehring Company, La., (September 24, 1973) in support of this contention.
  • Reech v. Bodin 286 So. 2d 477 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
    In reaching our conclusion, we are mindful of the principle of appellant review of facts as most recently described in Canter v. Koehring Company, La., (1973): "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.
  • Streetman v. Aeropres Corp. 291 So. 2d 515 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
  • Gattuso v. Clark 287 So. 2d 818 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
    (1973), the Supreme Court 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.
  • Branch v. Watkins Realty Corp. 289 So. 2d 381 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
    Sec: and the cases therein cited.
  • O'Keefe v. Warner 288 So. 2d 911 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
  • Sears, Roebuck and Company v. Gunn 286 So. 2d 404 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1973
  • Hartsell v. Hooker Chemical Corp. 288 So. 2d 417 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
    But, Canter v. Koehring, La.1973, , “the reviewing court must give great weight to the 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 own evaluations an
  • Adams v. Wood 285 So. 2d 870 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
    Canter v. Koehring Company, La., (1973); Orlando v. Polito, 228 La.
  • Fontenot v. Insurance Company of North America 283 So. 2d 733 La. 1973
    We have this day overruled the Maxey and Dulaney line of decisions in the case of Canter v. Koehring Co., La., , insofar as they hold that the duties imposed *734 under an employment or agency relationship are exclusively owed to the employer or principal and are irrelevant in determining whether a legal duty is owed to a third person (which in this sense includes a co-employee) by the officer, agent, or employee.