Cited by

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

3491 citing documents.

Brumbaugh v. Marathon Oil Co. 507 So. 2d 872 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1987
McCardie v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 504 So. 2d 111 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
Mart v. Hill 505 So. 2d 1120 La. 1987
Scott v. Barclay's Amer. Leasing Service 506 So. 2d 823 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
Florists' Mutual Insurance Co. v. Homecraft Corp. 506 So. 2d 746 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
Bankston v. Gregory & Cook, Inc. 506 So. 2d 820 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
Johnson v. City of Baton Rouge 506 So. 2d 882 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
Genina Marine Services, Inc. v. Mobil Exploration & Production Southeast, Inc. 506 So. 2d 922 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
*930 “Where there is credible evidence before the trier of fact, which furnishes a reasonable factual basis for the trial court’s conclusion, an appellate court should not reverse unless the trial court is clearly wrong.” Boulos, supra, at 3
Page v. Guidry 506 So. 2d 854 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
McNamara v. Stauffer Chemical Co. 506 So. 2d 1252 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
Wilkinson v. Town of Baker 506 So. 2d 739 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
Willie v. Barriere Const. Co., Inc. 506 So. 2d 669 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1987
Hill v. Lamulle 506 So. 2d 690 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1987
Hamilton v. Employers Casualty Co. 506 So. 2d 655 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
Adams v. Phillips 506 So. 2d 651 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
that 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 of the trial court; there must be a further determination that the record establishes that the finding is not clearly wrong.
Perkins v. United American Ins. Co. 505 So. 2d 206 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
Seaux v. Domingue 509 So. 2d 536 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
Gaspard v. State ex rel. Department of Revenue & Taxation 509 So. 2d 523 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
When reviewing factual findings based on testimony adduced in open court, when reviewing factual findings based on depositions, we must only determine the sufficiency and preponderance of the evidence.
Soileau v. United Services Automobile Ass'n 509 So. 2d 530 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
Gobert v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 509 So. 2d 544 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
” Woodard v. Gregory and Cook, Inc., supra, at 915.
Goutierrez v. R & J Quarterhorse Stables 509 So. 2d 551 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
Deville v. Port Pipe Terminal of Louisiana, Inc., (La.App.
Borne v. Wilander 509 So. 2d 572 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
Succession of Erbelding 509 So. 2d 568 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
Crochet v. Pritchard 509 So. 2d 501 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
1973); , on remand, , writ denied, .
State, Dept. of Trans. & Dev. v. Boagni 509 So. 2d 471 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
Robert v. Albarado 509 So. 2d 575 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
Howell v. Iacona 505 So. 2d 821 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
S.J. v. S.M. 505 So. 2d 897 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
Sj v. Sm 505 So. 2d 897 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
Boyter v. Blazer Const. Co., Inc. 505 So. 2d 854 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
In so doing, we apply the "clearly wrong" on remand , writ denied
Robinson v. Hardy 505 So. 2d 767 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
Allen v. Burrow 505 So. 2d 880 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
Doss v. Hartford Fire Ins.
Smiciklas v. Groendyke Transport, Inc. 505 So. 2d 775 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
Mesa v. Burke 506 So. 2d 121 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1987
The standard of review of factual questions is that the findings of the trial court should not be disturbed absent manifest error
Black Rogers & Co. v. Pope 504 So. 2d 1174 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
Suhren v. Suhren 505 So. 2d 129 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
4th Cir.1976).” The appellate court will not disturb the findings of fact of the trial court unless the findings are “clearly wrong.”
Explained Legnon v. McDonald 505 So. 2d 1159 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
is that even though the Appellate Court may feel that its own evaluations and inferences are as reasonable, it should not disturb reasonable findings of the trial court where there is conflict in the testimony.
Mills v. Martin 506 So. 2d 117 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
AF Blair Co., Inc. v. Haydel 504 So. 2d 1044 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
Capps v. Brashear 504 So. 2d 1049 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
Dellinger v. Dellinger 504 So. 2d 927 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
Gitschlag v. US Home Corp. 506 So. 2d 1236 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
US Fire Ins. v. W. Monroe Charter Service 504 So. 2d 93 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
Sellers v. Caddo Parish Com'n 503 So. 2d 1073 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
Matter of Fox 504 So. 2d 101 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
Brownell v. Dietz Motor Lines 503 So. 2d 1069 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
Bennett v. State Dept. of Transp. & Development 503 So. 2d 1022 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
Bank of Coushatta v. Patrick 503 So. 2d 1061 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
Boulos v. Morrison 503 So. 2d 1 La. 1987
The standard of appellate review of a
Gordon v. Commercial Union Insurance Company 503 So. 2d 190 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
Further, the Supreme Court amplified and further delineated the standard thusly: "Manifestly erroneous in its simplest terms, means `clearly wrong'.