Cited by

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

3491 citing documents.

Lanie Farms, Inc. v. Cleco Power, LLC 259 So. 3d 414 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
(citing Arceneaux v. Domingue , , 1333 (La.1978) and Watson v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Ins.
Templeton v. Jarreau 259 So. 3d 356 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
Arceneaux v. Domingue , , 1333 (La.
Roger Burchfield and Carol Burchfield v. Forrest H. Wright, M.D., Thomas Renda, M.D., and Willis Knighton Medical Center 275 So. 3d 855 La. 2018
River Rental Realty LLC v. Deep S. Leasing, LLC 250 So. 3d 372 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
Earl McCarthy, Sr. v. City of Opelousas La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
further determine that the record established that the finding is not clearly wrong (manifestly erroneous).” ().
In re J.L.C.K. 238 So. 3d 559 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2018
1989) ; Arceneaux v. Domingue , (La.
Emma Bradford v. Citgo Petroleum Corporation La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
Bradford v. Citgo Petroleum Corp. 237 So. 3d 648 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
Laura Carter v. Iberia Parish School Board La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
Carter v. Iberia Parish Sch. Bd. 258 So. 3d 740 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
2/4/94), (citing Arceneaux v. Domingue
Tobice Pritchard v. Geico Insurance Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
6/19/15), this court stated: Prior to articulating the foregoing standard, the supreme court in Watson noted that “appellate review of facts is not completed by reading so much of the record as will reveal a reasonable factual basis for the finding in the trial court.” Id., 469 So.2d at 972
Pritchard v. Geico Ins. Co. 242 So. 3d 787 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
469 So.2d at 972 , citing Arceneaux v. Domingue , , 1333 (La.1978).
Jimmy Williams, Sr. v. Placid Oil Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
( and Watson v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Ins.
Williams v. Placid Oil Co. 224 So. 3d 1101 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
( and Watson v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Ins.
Mukesh R. Zaveri, Et Ux. v. Dennis Lloyd Husers La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
Zaveri v. Husers 224 So. 3d 389 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
State in the Interest of T.M. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
However, when a petition for delinquency is filed but a determination of a CINS is found, the more rational standard of review would be that imposed by Arceneaux v. Domingue[, ] of clearly wrong or manifestly erroneous.
Sandifer v. City of Kenner 221 So. 3d 307 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
State ex rel T.M. 223 So. 3d 132 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
However, when a petition for delinquency is filed but a determination of a CINS is found, the more rational standard of review would be that imposed by Arceneaux v. Domingue[, ] of clearly wrong or manifestly erroneous.
Harley Mitchem v. Lester Soileau and Jeanelle Soileau La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
Mitchem v. Soileau 222 So. 3d 143 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
Johnson v. Orleans Parish School Board 219 So. 3d 452 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
“Therefore, the appellate review of facts is not completed by reading so much of the record as will reveal a reasonable factual basis for the finding in the trial court; there must be a further determination that the record establishes that the finding is not clearly wrong (manifestly erroneous).” (La.
State ex rel. Department of Children & Family Services, Child Support Enforcement ex rel. Bushman v. Knapp 216 So. 3d 130 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
Rosell, 549 So.2d at 844 ; (La.
State in the Interest of B.C. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
Thomas v. A. Wilbert & Sons, LLC 217 So. 3d 368 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
Dawson v. Falgout 215 So. 3d 373 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
Boes Iron Works, Inc. v. Gee Cee Group, Inc. 206 So. 3d 938 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
West v. Sewerage & Water Board 201 So. 3d 1011 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
Walters, 454 So.2d at 113
Volentine v. Raeford Farms of Louisiana, LLC 201 So. 3d 325 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
Aguillard v. Gregory 194 So. 3d 612 La. 2016
( and Watson v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Ins.
Fountain v. Ochsner Clinic Foundation Westbank Campus 194 So. 3d 728 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
Donald Ray Seaux, Sr., Et Ux. v. Dr. Juan Paredes La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
Sherry Wedgeworth, Et Ux. v. Tynes E. Mixon, III, M.D. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
An appellate court “may not set aside a trial court’s or a jury’s finding of fact in the absence of ‘manifest error’ or unless it is ‘clearly wrong[.]’” ().
Wedgeworth v. Mixon 184 So. 3d 876 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
An appellate court “may not set aside a trial court’s or a jury’s finding of fact in the absence of ‘manifest error’ or unless it is ‘clearly wrong[.]’ ” ().
Smith v. Southwest Louisiana Hospital Ass'n 178 So. 3d 308 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
Jeffery Smith v. Southwest Louisiana Hospital Association La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
James Nicholas Arterburn v. Karen Ann Powers Arterburn La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
Arterburn v. Arterburn 176 So. 3d 1163 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
State, Board of Ethics v. Garriga 182 So. 3d 194 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
State Board of Ethics v. Arnold 184 So. 3d 60 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
Oddo v. Asbestos Corp. 173 So. 3d 1192 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
Tyron Reed v. Dondi Lacombe La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
Skillman v. Riverside Baptist Church of Jefferson Parish 171 So. 3d 407 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
Gaffney v. Giles 165 So. 3d 1100 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
Taylor Adam Burtner v. Lafayette Parish Consolidated Government La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
Prior to articulating the foregoing standard, the supreme court in Watson noted that “appellate review of facts is not completed by reading so much of the 6 record as will reveal a reasonable factual basis for the finding in the trial court.” Id., 469 So.2d at 972
Burtner v. Lafayette Parish Consolidated Government 176 So. 3d 1056 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
Prior to articulating the foregoing standard, the supreme court in Watson noted that “appellate review of facts is not completed by reading so much of the 17record as will reveal a reasonable factual basis for the finding in the trial court.” Id., 469 So.2d at 972
McKamey v. Carona 169 So. 3d 449 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
Arabie v. CITGO Petroleum, 10-2605 (La.3/13/12), , Arceneaux v.. Domingue
Patricia Parker v. Town of Woodworth La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
3 Cir. 2/2/11), “(” “When, as here, the factual findings of the trial court are based on the credibility determinations of the witnesses, great deference must be afforded to the trial court’s findings.” Smith v. Guidroz, 12- 1232, p. 15 (La.App.
Parker v. Town of Woodworth 160 So. 3d 1113 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
3 Cir. 2/2/11), , 1011 “()” “When, as here, the factual findings of the trial court are based on the credibility determinations of the witnesses, great deference must be afforded to the trial court’s findings.” Smith v. Guidroz, 12-1232, p. 15 (La.App.
State ex rel. S.T. 158 So. 3d 944 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
conflicting testimony, reasonable evaluations of credibility and reasonable inferences of fact should not be disturbed upon review, even when the appellate court may feel that its own evaluations and inferences are as reasonable as *947 those of the juvenile court.” In re A.J.F., 00-948, p. 25 (La.6/30/00), ()