DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Dyson v. Gulf Modular Corp., 338 So. 2d 1385.

51 citing documents.

  • Abby Gail Garcie v. City of Natchitoches La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
    The question, at 1390 (La.1976) is whether “the party’s conduct conform[ed] to the standard of care that would be exercised by a reasonable man; or did the conduct breach a duty imposed upon the party to protect against the particular risk from which the accident resulted?” In other words, did the plaintiff
  • Winfield v. Porter 618 So. 2d 890 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
    the Supreme Court stated: An appellate court is simply not free to substitute its own version of the facts, however reasonable it may be, for that found by the trial court, unless the lower court committed manifest error by finding facts not reasonably supported by credible evidence in the record.
  • Dobson v. Louisiana Power & Light Co. 567 So. 2d 569 La. 1990
  • Buckbee v. United Gas Pipe Line Co. Inc. 561 So. 2d 76 La. 1990
    Co., Theunissen v. Guidry, 244 La.
  • Bunge Corp. v. Gatx Corp. 557 So. 2d 1376 La. 1990
  • Clifton v. Liner 552 So. 2d 407 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
  • STATE, DOTD v. Caroline Atkins Crawford Business Trusts 538 So. 2d 1078 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
  • Wright v. US Gypsum Co. 538 So. 2d 291 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
    The question, at 1390 (La.1976) is whether "the party's conduct conform[ed] to the standard of care that would be exercised by a reasonable man; or did the conduct breach a duty imposed upon the party to protect against the particular risk from which the accident resulted?"
  • Snow v. Gulf States Utilities Co. 492 So. 2d 31 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    The question which we must answer is whether "`the party's conduct conformed) to the standard of care that would be exercised by a reasonable man; or did the conduct breach a duty imposed upon the party to protect against the particular risk from which the accident resulted?'" Esco v. Smith, supra, (La.
  • Esco v. Smith 468 So. 2d 1169 La. 1985
    The question, is whether "the party's conduct conform(ed) to the standard of care that would be exercised by a reasonable man; or did the conduct breach a duty imposed upon the party to protect against the particular risk from which the accident resulted?"
  • Horton v. Valley Elec. Membership Corp. 461 So. 2d 375 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
  • Esco v. Smith 457 So. 2d 786 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    As cited in Hebert , at 1390 (La.1976) which asks whether, “the party’s conduct conform(ed) to the standard of care that would be exercised by a reasonable man; or did the conduct breach a duty imposed upon the party to protect against the particular risk from which the accident resulted?” In Williams v. New Orleans Public Service Inc., 4
  • Elmwood Plantation v. Ruud Water Heater Div. 435 So. 2d 507 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1983
    See Canter v. Koehring, supra
  • Brock v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. 433 So. 2d 1083 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
  • Hebert v. Gulf States Utilities Co. 426 So. 2d 111 La. 1983
    The question, at 1390 (La.
  • Di Carlo v. State Farm Mutual Insurance 418 So. 2d 30 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    See Canter v. Koehring, supra
  • Verrett v. Cameron Telephone Co. 417 So. 2d 1319 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
    Harper v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc., (La.
  • Tirante v. Gulf States Utilities Co. 412 So. 2d 128 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
  • Lacombe v. Greathouse 407 So. 2d 1346 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
  • Joseph v. Albarado 407 So. 2d 1277 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
  • Rodgers v. Missouri Pacific Railroad 405 So. 2d 571 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    471 , (1962); ” The record reflects, and MoPac concedes in brief, that it is the established policy of MoPac to provide workers engaged in the repair and maintenance of railroad crossings with advance warning of approaching trains.
  • Harrison v. Howell 384 So. 2d 464 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    where the Supreme Court stated that the appellate court should not disturb a finding of fact unless it is clearly wrong, in which the Supreme Court reiterated that the appellate court simply is not free to substitute its own version of the facts, however reasonable it may be, for facts as determined by the trial court unless the lower court committed manifest error by finding facts not reasonably supported by credible evidenc
  • Billiot v. Rivere 378 So. 2d 512 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    our Supreme Court said: “ <* * * gtated another way, 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 * * * Fo
  • Williams v. City of Alexandria 376 So. 2d 367 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
  • Dupree v. Pechinay Saint Gobain Co. 369 So. 2d 1075 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
  • Plaisance v. Collins 365 So. 2d 608 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
  • Andry v. Kinberger 364 So. 2d 613 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
    [2] See Dyson v. Gulf Modular Corp., La., ; Roussel v. Colonial Sugars Company, La., ; Canter v. Koehring Company, La., .
  • Lou-Ark Equipment Rentals Co. v. Hong Ah Fong 355 So. 2d 1019 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
  • Danos v. Foret 354 So. 2d 667 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
    were restated to the effect that even if another interpretation or conclusion to be drawn from the facts is equally reasonable as that found by the trial judge, the intermediate appellate court is not to substitute its own
  • Chmurka v. Southern Farm Bur. Ins. Co. 357 So. 2d 1207 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
  • Jones v. Meinke 357 So. 2d 838 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
  • Ken Edwards Real Estate, Inc. v. Molero's Marina, Inc. 355 So. 2d 1067 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
  • Killebrew v. Abbott Laboratories 352 So. 2d 332 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
  • Loraso v. Albritton 354 So. 2d 230 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
  • Followed Philip Quaglino Tobacco Co. v. Fenerty 354 So. 2d 1075 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
  • Efferson v. Laurie 354 So. 2d 665 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
  • Fairchild v. Brian 354 So. 2d 675 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    were restated to the effect that even if another interpretation or conclusion to be drawn from the facts is equally as reasonable as that found by the trial judge, the appellate court is not to substitute its own version o
  • Gatheright v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 352 So. 2d 428 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
  • Thornton v. Moran 348 So. 2d 79 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    1st Cir. 1976), *81 wherein this Court after reviewing thoroughly the record in a bifurcated trial, [1] wherein opposite results were reached, and this Court being ever mindful of the manifest error rule and the "reasonable conclusion of fact" we concluded that neither result was manifestly erroneous and affirmed.
  • Cutrer v. Kentwood Motors, Inc. 351 So. 2d 817 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
  • Raborn v. Ourso 351 So. 2d 1271 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
  • St. Pierre v. Gabel 351 So. 2d 821 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
  • Bennett v. Bennett 349 So. 2d 909 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    See Billiot v. Bourg, La., (1976) and Dyson v. Gulf Modular Corporation, La., (1976).
  • Parish of East Baton Rouge v. Coleman 347 So. 2d 1220 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
  • Geisler v. Louisiana Power & Light Co. 346 So. 2d 339 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1977
    plaintiff was electrocuted while holding a cable which came in contact with a power line.
  • City Auto Wreckers, Inc. v. Wright 346 So. 2d 873 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
  • Terry v. J. B. Talley & Co. 346 So. 2d 801 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
  • Dyson v. Gulf Modular Corp. 345 So. 2d 1222 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
  • Fallon v. Dorsett 344 So. 2d 434 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    Therefore, we cannot and shall not disturb it; (La.App.
  • Mitchell v. Sigrest 345 So. 2d 141 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977