Cited by

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

3491 citing documents.

Hebert v. First Guar. Bank 493 So. 2d 150 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
1st Cir.1985) that "[t]he district judge evaluated the live testimony of witnesses for plaintiff and for defendants and his evaluation will not be disturbed unless it is found to be clearly wrong,"
Mercer v. Fruehauf Corp. 492 So. 2d 538 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
Watson v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Insurance Company
Foreman v. Saucier 491 So. 2d 811 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Bivalacqua v. Aube 493 So. 2d 209 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
Watson v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Insurance Company
Walker v. Self Service Storage and Miniwarehouses, Inc. 492 So. 2d 210 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
Upton v. L.O.B. Enterprises 492 So. 2d 1252 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Mayeux v. Commercial Union Insurance Companies 492 So. 2d 188 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
re is conflict in testimony, reasonable evaluations of credibility and reasonable inferences of fact should not be disturbed upon review, even though the appellate court may feel that its own evaluations and inferences are as reasonable.” The court said in Arceneaux v. Domen-geaux: “[T]he appellate court should not disturb [the trial judge’s or jury’s] finding of fact unless it is clearly wrong.”
State, in Interest of Rw v. Jlw 491 So. 2d 652 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
McNamara v. John E. Chance & Associates, Inc. 491 So. 2d 154 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
Lancaster v. Petroleum Corp. of Delaware 491 So. 2d 768 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
Day v. J. Ray McDermott, Inc. 492 So. 2d 83 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Atkinson v. Total Computer Systems, Inc. 492 So. 2d 121 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Dreher v. Hood Motor Co., Inc. 492 So. 2d 132 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
East Church Street Ass'n v. Dangerfield 491 So. 2d 417 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Sims v. Travelers Indemnity Co. 491 So. 2d 429 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
White v. Givens 491 So. 2d 63 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Amoco Production Co. v. Slaughter 491 So. 2d 760 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Chrysler Credit Corp. v. Dairyland Ins. Co. 491 So. 2d 402 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Tyler v. Natchitoches Coca-Cola Bottling Co. 491 So. 2d 358 La. 1986
Gullage v. F.W. Woolworth Co. 492 So. 2d 77 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Brown v. Georgia Cas. and Sur. Co. 490 So. 2d 639 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
Prest v. State Dept. of Transp. 490 So. 2d 659 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
Turner v. Rochelle 490 So. 2d 633 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
Succession of Barnes 490 So. 2d 630 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
Jones v. Kwik Karol and Ginalco, Inc. 490 So. 2d 664 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
SESSIONS, FISHMAN, ROSENSON, ETC. v. Taddonio 490 So. 2d 526 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
Borne v. Brown 492 So. 2d 6 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Reed v. Verwoerdt 490 So. 2d 421 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
Pizani v. Cranmer 493 So. 2d 134 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
Anthony v. Hospital Service Dist.
Puderer v. Gonzales 490 So. 2d 438 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
rsonal injuries filed by Mr. Purderer [sic] and this court renders a judgment in favor of Louis C. Gonzales and Leader National Insurance Company.” On appeal, the standard of review to be applied on factual issues, is whether the trial court was manifestly erroneous; in other words, clearly wrong in its factual determination, and their progency.
Duckworth v. Winn Dixie Louisiana, Inc. 490 So. 2d 408 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
Demolle v. Horace Mann Ins. Co. 491 So. 2d 695 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
Cenac v. Cenac 492 So. 2d 39 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Frey v. Alfred 492 So. 2d 48 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Roy v. Landry 489 So. 2d 1018 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Pazereckis v. Thornhill 489 So. 2d 986 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
General Supply of Houma, Inc. v. Cenco Supply, Inc. 489 So. 2d 989 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Lanier Business Products, Inc. v. Alpha of Louisiana, Inc. 489 So. 2d 1033 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Balehi Marine, Inc. v. Firemen's Insurance Co. of Newark 489 So. 2d 1360 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Trosclair v. Terrebonne Parish School Bd. 489 So. 2d 1293 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
In support, they argue first that the issue "involves a question of sufficiency of evidence,"
Nix v. Brasly 489 So. 2d 1038 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Honn v. Hartman 489 So. 2d 468 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Williams v. Keystone General Contractors, Inc. 488 So. 2d 999 La. 1986
Douglas v. Thomas 489 So. 2d 449 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
Swilley v. Swilley 489 So. 2d 456 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
McCormick v. Insured Lloyds Ins. Co. 488 So. 2d 491 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
Barnett v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. 489 So. 2d 452 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
Hatch v. Acadiana Bank & Trust Co. 488 So. 2d 437 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
Charles v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. 488 So. 2d 254 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Toce Oil Co. v. Central Industries, Inc. 488 So. 2d 331 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
1973), and their progeny.