Cited by

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

2744 citing documents.

Riley v. Salley 874 So. 2d 874 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
Lewis v. CHATEAU D'ARBONNE NURSE CARE CTR. 870 So. 2d 515 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
James Helper, Elizabeth Gail Helper, Etc. v. Dr. Chih Hao Lin La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
Hepler v. Lin 869 So. 2d 969 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
Scramuzza v. River Oaks Inc. 871 So. 2d 522 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
Pinsonneault v. Merchants & Farmers Bank & Trust Co., 2001-2217 (La.4/3/02)
State of Louisiana in the Interest of T.M. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
State ex rel. T.M. 869 So. 2d 339 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
Lockett v. STATE, DOTD 869 So. 2d 87 La. 2004
Hutchinson v. KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS, NO. 5747 866 So. 2d 228 La. 2004
Henderson v. Nissan Motor Corp. 869 So. 2d 62 La. 2004
Williams v. Louisiana Medical Mutual Insurance Co. 866 So. 2d 306 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
Courts have recognized that “[t]he 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.”
Moore v. Kenilworth/Kailas Properties 865 So. 2d 884 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
Quinn v. GGS, L.L.C. 862 So. 2d 324 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Pinsonneault v. Merchants & Farmers Bank & Trust Co., 2001-2217 (La.4/3/02)
Gastinell v. Transit Management of Southeast Louisiana, Inc. 862 So. 2d 255 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
JCM Const. Co., Inc. v. Orleans Parish School Bd. 860 So. 2d 610 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
Kirsch v. New Orleans Police Department 859 So. 2d 965 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Andrea Seyfarth v. New Day Outpatient Rehab La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
6/30/00), 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 should not disturb this factual finding in the absence of manife
Seyfarth v. New Day Outpatient Rehab 862 So. 2d 105 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Plastics, Inc., 99-2676, p. 9 (La.6/30/00), , 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 should not disturb this factual finding in the absence of manifest error.
Ramirez v. Transit Management of Southeast Louisiana, Inc. 855 So. 2d 379 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Burnett v. Lewis 852 So. 2d 519 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
Courts have recognized that “[t]he 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 *528 courts.”
Green v. K-Mart Corp. 849 So. 2d 814 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
We have adopted the criteria necessary to impose personal liability on an employee
Broyard v. Rainer 850 So. 2d 793 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Delaune v. Harrelson 843 So. 2d 1216 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
This court has recognized that “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.”
Johnson v. Camanga 845 So. 2d 1140 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Dixon v. Travelers Ins. Co. 842 So. 2d 478 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
Hornage v. White 841 So. 2d 1026 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Ewing v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc. 846 So. 2d 813 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
Since the law did not expressly confer immunity from tort suits on any person other than the employer, that an injured worker was allowed to seek recovery in tort from negligent executive officers and their liability insurers.
Jones v. City of New Orleans 840 So. 2d 620 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
This court has recognized that “[t]he 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.”
Schiro v. Schiro 839 So. 2d 304 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
Bujol v. Entergy Services, Inc. 833 So. 2d 947 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Canter v. Koehring Company
Henry v. Parish of Jefferson 835 So. 2d 912 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
Smith v. Avondale Industries, Inc. 834 So. 2d 1233 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
Bias v. Vincent 832 So. 2d 1153 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
Green v. K-Mart Corp. 834 So. 2d 1084 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
We have adopted the criteria necessary to impose personal liability on an employee
D & D INVESTMENTS v. First Bank and Trust 831 So. 2d 488 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
Bergeron v. Clark 832 So. 2d 327 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
Robicheaux v. Adly 827 So. 2d 429 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
Updegraff v. STATE EX REL. DOTD 828 So. 2d 693 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
Updegraff v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation & Development 828 So. 2d 693 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
this 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 the absence of manifest error.
Street v. Louisiana Pacific Corp. 829 So. 2d 450 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
Reeves v. Johnson 824 So. 2d 1277 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
Grimes v. Patterson Insurance Co. 822 So. 2d 199 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
[ , supra (La.1973)] ...
Campo v. Correa 828 So. 2d 502 La. 2002
Buckbee, 561 So.2d at 87 (() for the proposition that the preservation of the proper allocation of functions between the trial and appellate courts is one reason the appellate courts adhere to the manifest error standard of review).
Ratcliff v. Normand 819 So. 2d 434 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
Augillard v. Gaspard 820 So. 2d 1177 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
“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.”
Arcadian Corp. v. Olin Corp. 824 So. 2d 396 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
Ambrose, 639 So.2d at 224, n. 1 (Lemmon, J., concurring) However, while deference must be given to the factfinder's determinations, this court clarified in Ambrose that our purpose in Stobart was not "to mandate that the trial court's factual determinations cannot ever, or harldy (sic) ever, be upset."
City of Eunice v. Carrier 821 So. 2d 3 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
Hoerner v. ANCO Insulations, Inc. 812 So. 2d 45 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
Prior to the 1976 amendments to the workers' compensation laws, workers were not prohibited from seeking recovery for work-related accidents and injuries from executive officers of their employers, provided the following test, was met: 1.
Pinsonneault v. Merchants & Farmers Bank & Trust Company 816 So. 2d 270 La. 2002
Petre v. State Ex Rel. DOTD 817 So. 2d 1107 La. 2002
Canter v. Koehring, Co., (La.