Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Gonzales v. Xerox Corp., 320 So. 2d 163.

600 citing documents.

Cacamo v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. 885 So. 2d 1248 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
Seals v. Sumrall 887 So. 2d 91 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
In Re Succession of Hebert 887 So. 2d 98 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
Taxing Dist. v. ALL TAXPAYERS, PROP. OWNERS 883 So. 2d 459 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
Hoffman v. PARACELSUS ELMWOOD MED. CENTER 881 So. 2d 796 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
Dolese v. Transit Management of Southeast Louisiana, Inc. 881 So. 2d 746 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
Andrus v. LAD CORP. 875 So. 2d 124 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
Co., 94-1252 (La.2/20/95), -47
Watson v. Bulloch 868 So. 2d 825 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
when an appellate court has all of the facts before it, a trial court’s erroneous jury instruction does not warrant a remand.
In Re McLarrin 865 So. 2d 317 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
Cadogan v. McClanahan 861 So. 2d 250 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
Co., 94-1252 (La.2/20/95), -47
Menson v. Taylor 849 So. 2d 836 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Washington v. Washington 846 So. 2d 895 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Washington v. Washington 846 So. 2d 895 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
Schultz v. Hill 840 So. 2d 641 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Duzon v. Stallworth 866 So. 2d 837 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
the Louisiana Supreme Court stated that a case should be reversed, "when the trial court has made a consequential but erroneous ruling on the exclusion or admission of evidence."
DeSoto v. Balbeisi 837 So. 2d 48 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
Glapion v. Bergeaux 834 So. 2d 1141 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
Jones v. Black, 95-2530 (La.6/28/96)
Hebert v. ANCO Insulation, Inc. 835 So. 2d 483 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
-166 (La.1975); Noveh v. Broadway, Inc., 95-2081, p. 6 (La.App.
Rivet v. State, Department of Transportation & Development 825 So. 2d 543 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
in support of this proposition.
Campo v. Correa 828 So. 2d 502 La. 2002
Co., 94-1252 (La.2/20/95), -47 ; (La.
Winfield v. Dih 816 So. 2d 942 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
(citing Donaldson, supra; ); Woolley v. CAS Refining, Inc., 94-648, pp. 2-3 (La.App.
ESTATE OF CRISTADORO v. Gold-Kist, Inc. 819 So. 2d 1034 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
Jones v. Black, 95-2530 (La.6/28/96), , (La.
Cerniglia v. French 816 So. 2d 319 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
Jones v. Black, 95-2530 (La.6/28/96), , (La.
State Ex Rel. WHV v. JAV 811 So. 2d 189 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
State ex rel. W.H.V. v. J.A.V. 811 So. 2d 189 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
Boutte v. ABC Insurance Companies 811 So. 2d 30 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
Rosell v. ESCO, supra, 549 So.2d at 844 (La.1989)
Marrogi v. Howard 805 So. 2d 1118 La. 2002
[12] The court of appeal, in affirming summary judgment in favor of the expert witness defendant, cited Terry v. Fellows, supra , , (1969), for the proposition that testimony given at a judicial proceeding by a non-litigant witness carries with it absolute immunity from a defamation suit stemming from the utterance of such testimony.
Connolly v. Stone 807 So. 2d 979 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
DAIQUIRI CAFE SHERWOOD INC. v. Parish of E. Baton Rouge 818 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
State, Louisiana Riverboat Gaming Commission v. Louisiana State Police Riverboat Gaming Enforcement Division, 95-2355, p. 5 (La.App.
Busby v. Cappaert Manufactured Housing, Inc. 799 So. 2d 608 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
(providing for appellate de novo review of a trial court's legal error).
Jenkins v. Baldwin 801 So. 2d 485 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
Smith v. Johnson 789 So. 2d 672 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
2 (La.1989); -05 (La.1986).
Abadie v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. 784 So. 2d 46 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
ACL argues that the requested charges should have been given because they stated pertinent and applicable law that could have absolved them of liability
In Re Adoption of JLG 808 So. 2d 491 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
Rosell, 549 So.2d at 844
Snearl v. Mercer 780 So. 2d 563 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
Franklin and Moore v. Gilsbar, Inc., 95-1520, p. 4 (La.
Hasney v. Allstate Ins. Co. 781 So. 2d 598 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
Orlando v. General Elec.
Hubbard v. Lakeland Nursing Home 781 So. 2d 95 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
Landry v. Latter 780 So. 2d 450 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
Quinn v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 774 So. 2d 1093 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
Alternatively, Wal-Mart argues that the jury verdict should be reviewed de novo because these tapes were erroneously excluded by the trial court.
West v. Melancon 772 So. 2d 166 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
Nicholas v. Allstate Ins. Co. 765 So. 2d 1017 La. 2000
Sommer v. STATE, DEPT. OF TRANSP. DEVELOPMENT 758 So. 2d 923 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
Gravois v. Delta Airlines, Inc. 797 So. 2d 686 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
State, Louisiana Riverboat Gaming Commission v. Louisiana State Police Riverboat Gaming Enforcement Division, 95-2355, p. 5 (La.App.
Sommer v. State, Department of Transportation & Development 758 So. 2d 923 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
In Re HMM 754 So. 2d 425 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
In re H.M.M. 754 So. 2d 425 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
State ex rel. A. C. 772 So. 2d 668 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
Perry v. Anderson 751 So. 2d 374 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
-6 (La.1975) the Supreme Court stated: While the trial court remains the original forum for resolving factual and legal issues, the Louisiana Constitution expressly extends the jurisdiction of appellate courts in civil cases to the review of facts as well as law.
Lawson v. Straus 750 So. 2d 234 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
Southlake Dev. v. Secretary, Dept. of Rev. 745 So. 2d 203 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999