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.

  • Schulingkamp v. Ochsner Clinic 813 So. 2d 524 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
  • Seitz v. Scofield 812 So. 2d 764 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
  • Hodapp v. Sam's Wholesale 815 So. 2d 916 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
  • Fernandez v. New Orleans Fire Department 809 So. 2d 1163 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    Sistler v. Liberty Mutual Ins.
  • Danigole v. New Orleans Police Department 812 So. 2d 682 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
  • Cloy v. Lee 807 So. 2d 900 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
  • Lofton v. Hayward 806 So. 2d 877 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    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.”
  • New South Communications v. Wright 803 So. 2d 1103 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
  • Rebouche v. Harvey 805 So. 2d 332 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
  • Carter v. Cox Cable, New Orleans 806 So. 2d 24 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    The Louisiana Supreme 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 *28 allocation of trial and appellate 1¿Junctions between the respective courts.” Stobart v. State through Dept. of Transp.
  • Ruff v. Kendrick 803 So. 2d 253 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
    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.”
  • Dumas v. City of New Orleans 803 So. 2d 1001 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
  • Catchot v. RAMCO Construction 818 So. 2d 105 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
  • Borne v. King 799 So. 2d 853 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
  • Stein Mart v. Prejean 798 So. 2d 1230 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
  • Brandon v. Trosclair 800 So. 2d 49 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
  • Langley v. Larco Environmental Services, Inc. 798 So. 2d 1097 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    this court defined that standard in the following manner: 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 th
  • Guillory v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 796 So. 2d 772 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
    In Edwards, 765 So.2d at 333 () the supreme court again set forth the principles of manifest error: 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 fin
  • Methvin v. Ferguson 796 So. 2d 712 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
  • Garner v. Louisiana Housing 798 So. 2d 295 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    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.”
  • Vignette Publications, Inc. v. Harborview Enterprises, Inc. 799 So. 2d 531 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
  • State Ex Rel. Gjl 791 So. 2d 80 La. 2001
  • State ex rel. G.J.L. 791 So. 2d 80 La. 2001
  • State ex rel. K.A.M. 809 So. 2d 206 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
  • Abadie v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. 804 So. 2d 11 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
  • Lasyone v. Kansas City Southern RR 786 So. 2d 682 La. 2001
    (the preservation of the proper allocation of functions between trial and appellate courts is one reason the appellate courts adhere to the manifest error standard of review).
  • Abadie v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. 784 So. 2d 46 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
    A. RULES OF LAW FOR EXECUTIVE OFFICERS LIABILITY Avondale Executive Officers acknowledge that the trial court gave the basic charge with regard to executive officer liability from the case of Canter v. Koehring, Co.
  • Perkins v. Entergy Corp. 782 So. 2d 606 La. 2001
    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 ever, be upset."
  • Fournet v. Roule-Graham 783 So. 2d 439 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
  • LeBlanc v. Barry 790 So. 2d 75 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
  • Maney v. Evans 780 So. 2d 1136 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
  • Stevens v. Willis 778 So. 2d 1196 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    Moreover, “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 own evaluations and inferences are as reasonable.”
  • Bordelon v. Inland Indus. Contractors 783 So. 2d 413 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
    Standard of Review In Edwards v. Sawyer Industrial Plastics, Inc., 99-2676, p. 9 (La.6/30/00), , the supreme court reviewed its definition of the standard for appellate review of a workers' compensation judge's factual findings: 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, o
  • Lacombe v. Buras 778 So. 2d 1181 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
  • LaSalle v. Benson Car Co., Inc. 783 So. 2d 404 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
  • Petre v. State Ex Rel. DOTD 775 So. 2d 1252 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
    In Canter v. Koehring, Co., (La.
  • Stokes v. Stewart 774 So. 2d 1215 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
  • LeBlanc v. Breaux 777 So. 2d 532 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    5th Cir.1/13/99), , writ denied, 99-0430 (La.4/1/99)
  • Corona v. Allstate Insurance Co. 774 So. 2d 336 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    ourt further stated in Stobart : This court has recognized that “[tjhe 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.”
  • Davis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 774 So. 2d 84 La. 2000
  • In the Matter of Succession of Brantley 789 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
  • Wainwright v. Fontenot 774 So. 2d 70 La. 2000
  • Touchard v. Slemco Electric Foundation 769 So. 2d 1200 La. 2000
  • Alexander v. Austin 771 So. 2d 719 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
  • West v. Melancon 772 So. 2d 166 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
  • Williams v. Ravare Masonry Co. 774 So. 2d 254 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
  • Nicholas v. Allstate Ins. Co. 765 So. 2d 1017 La. 2000
  • Edwards v. Sawyer Indus. Plastics, Inc. 765 So. 2d 328 La. 2000
    this court defined that standard in the following manner: *333 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
  • Farbe v. Casualty Reciprocal Exchange 765 So. 2d 994 La. 2000
    1980); -28 (La.1973); Harvey, 163 So.2d at 921-22 .
  • Zanca v. Life Insurance Co. of North America 770 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    This court 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.”