Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Arceneaux v. Domingue, 365 So. 2d 1330.

3491 citing documents.

Gardner v. McDonald 660 So. 2d 107 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
Donaldson v. Sanders 661 So. 2d 1010 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
Akerman v. Dawes 658 So. 2d 1270 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
Kilpatrick v. Alliance Cas. & Reinsurance Co. 663 So. 2d 62 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
Rosenkrantz v. BATON ROUGE PSYCH. ASSOC. 657 So. 2d 1353 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Donavan v. Jones 658 So. 2d 755 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
Doucet v. Champagne 657 So. 2d 92 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
wherein it stated that the court of appeal should not upset the factual findings of a trial court absent manifest error or unless clearly wrong.
Bigner v. LSU Medical Center 658 So. 2d 218 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
Northern Assurance Co. of America v. Cotton 658 So. 2d 246 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
Dauzat v. Rapides Parish Police Jury 657 So. 2d 484 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
1989), we synthesized the ‘manifest error’ and ‘clearly wrong’ (La.
Tartar v. Hymes 656 So. 2d 756 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
7/5/94), , 220: this Court held that the court of appeal should not upset the factual findings of a trial court absent manifest error or unless clearly wrong.
Ruttley v. Steiner 656 So. 2d 1095 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
7/5/94), : this Court held that the court of appeal should not upset the factual findings of a trial court absent manifest error or unless clearly wrong.
Garlepied Transfer, Inc. v. GUARANTY BK. & TR. CO. 656 So. 2d 728 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
Stark v. National Tea Co. 655 So. 2d 769 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
7/5/94); ; Stobart v. State, through DOTD
EM Nominee Partnership Co. v. Arkla Energy Resources 656 So. 2d 55 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
and Stobart v. State, through DODT
Reichert v. State, Department of Transportation & Development 656 So. 2d 47 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
Rowsey v. Jones 655 So. 2d 560 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
Martinez v. Schumpert Medical Center 655 So. 2d 649 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
Hebert v. State Department of Wildlife & Fisheries 656 So. 2d 23 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
The Supreme Court of Louisiana developed a
Johnson v. Chateau Living Center 653 So. 2d 1367 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Lewis v. STATE, DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION & DEV. 654 So. 2d 311 La. 1995
Vedros v. Public Grain Elevator of N.O., Inc. 654 So. 2d 775 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Elder v. Rowe 653 So. 2d 718 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
|4 the court found occasion to extend this principle to a case where the defendants’ car rear-ended the plaintiffs car, declaring that “it seems only reasonable that a motorist should not run into an automobile ahead of him, when the driver of that automobile is without fault”.
Fuge v. Uiterwyk 653 So. 2d 707 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
Stobart v. State through Dept. of Transp.
Simon v. Fasig-Tipton Co. 652 So. 2d 1351 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
Stewart v. Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Co. 657 So. 2d 1327 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
Dupre v. Insurance Co. of North America 646 So. 2d 461 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
Pennington Const., Inc. v. RA Eagle Corp. 652 So. 2d 637 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Wyatt v. PO2, INC. 651 So. 2d 359 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
Guillot v. Brooks 651 So. 2d 345 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
In evaluating an injunctive enforcement provision in Acts 1954, No. 34, authorizing a comprehensive zoning ordinance for the City of Shreveport, the supreme court indicated neighboring landowners have standing to enjoin violations when they have shown significant adverse effects upon the value and enjoyment
Meliet v. Brown & Root Industrial Services, Inc. 652 So. 2d 105 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Wyatt v. PO2, Inc. 651 So. 2d 359 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
Blackwell v. St. Romain Oil Co. 651 So. 2d 441 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
1994), the supreme court discussed the following standard for review of factual findings: *443 this Court held that the court of appeal should not upset the factual findings of a trial court absent manifest error or unless clearly wrong.
Phillips v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc. 650 So. 2d 1259 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
Ferrell v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. 650 So. 2d 742 La. 1995
1989), we synthesized the "manifest error" and "clearly wrong" and the United States Supreme Court in Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564 , 105 S.Ct.
Maranto v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. 650 So. 2d 757 La. 1995
( See also Stobart, 617 So.2d at 882 .
Weatherford v. Commercial Union Ins. 650 So. 2d 763 La. 1995
Gamino v. Lakeside Hosp. 652 So. 2d 36 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
7/5/94), , 220: this Court held that the court of appeal should not upset the factual findings of a trial court absent manifest error or unless clearly wrong.
Ranger Ins. Co. v. Mancuso 652 So. 2d 28 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
Cooley v. K-Mart Corp. 650 So. 2d 835 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Frizzell v. Lee 652 So. 2d 55 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Smith v. State Dept. of Health & Hosp. 650 So. 2d 450 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
Hoyt v. Wood/Chuck Chipper Corp. 651 So. 2d 1344 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
The basic issue is: or whether they are free to fashion new rules that achieve what they sincerely believe to be an equitable result.
Melancon v. LaRocca 650 So. 2d 371 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
Carter v. Baham 649 So. 2d 967 La. 1995
Simmons v. Simmons 649 So. 2d 799 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
Cubley v. Steel Forgings, Inc. 649 So. 2d 117 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
Leblanc v. Hughes 649 So. 2d 1063 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
To the extent that the jury failed to award any property damages whatsoever when some were clearly attributable to the accident, it clearly erred
Bradford v. Winn Dixie of Louisiana, Inc. 648 So. 2d 464 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
McCoy v. Monroe Timber Co. 647 So. 2d 1383 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by