Cited by

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

3491 citing documents.

Shaffer v. Illinois Cent. Gulf Railroad Co. 479 So. 2d 927 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Cure v. Hull 482 So. 2d 725 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Lee v. K-Mart Corp. 483 So. 2d 609 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Arnone v. Anzalone 481 So. 2d 1047 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Riverie v. Mills 481 So. 2d 1050 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Davis v. Lamont 481 So. 2d 643 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Stringer v. State ex rel. Department of Highways 481 So. 2d 720 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Vide v. Calmes 481 So. 2d 714 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Calmes next contends that the trial court committed manifest error in failing to invoke the judicial presumption that when a party fails to testify at his own trial, the facts as he would have them do not exist.
Pleune v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation & Development 481 So. 2d 1365 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Scafide v. C. Itoh Industrial Machinery, Inc. 483 So. 2d 151 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Vining v. Bardwell 482 So. 2d 685 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Sampay v. Morton Salt Co. 482 So. 2d 752 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Booty v. Kentwood Manor Nursing Home, Inc. 483 So. 2d 634 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Cheramie v. Bd. of Trustees, State Employees Group Benefit Program 482 So. 2d 742 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Blackwell v. Blackwell 479 So. 2d 1085 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
DiLeo v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc. 480 So. 2d 1006 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
John P. Harris, MD, Inc. v. Parmley 480 So. 2d 500 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
Johnson v. Crowe 479 So. 2d 1065 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Brady v. United Services Automobile Ass'n 480 So. 2d 393 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
The issue is whether, upon a we may determine that the jury’s finding is not clearly wrong.
Morgan v. Morgan 480 So. 2d 401 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Ill DISCUSSION On appeal the standard of review in factual determinations is “manifest error”
Bourque v. Gulf Marine Transp., Inc. 480 So. 2d 337 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
Toten v. General Motors Corp. 479 So. 2d 957 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
Barnett v. Duraso 479 So. 2d 675 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Demars v. Luneau Mobile Home Sales, Inc. 479 So. 2d 1025 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Ducote v. Luneau Mobile Home Sales, Inc. 479 So. 2d 1028 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Dement v. International Paper Co. 479 So. 2d 993 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Fauria v. Doe 483 So. 2d 148 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
The rule of Canter , wherein the Supreme Court stated: “As an aid to the exercise of the appellate function of review of facts in civil cases, we attempted to explain, in Canter v. Koehring, supra, without great detail, the appropriate standard.
Pringle v. Williamson Chevrolet, Buick & Pontiac, Inc. 480 So. 2d 929 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
This standard of appellate review was not intended to be applied so as to require upholding the ruling of a trial court simply, “when the evidence before the *931 trier of fact furnishes a reasonable basis for its findings.”
First SEC. Bank and Trust Co. v. Dooley 480 So. 2d 842 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
Vicknair v. Hibernia Bldg. Corp. 479 So. 2d 904 La. 1985
Housing Authority of New Iberia v. Austin 478 So. 2d 1012 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Zeringue v. Zeringue 479 So. 2d 443 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Dickerson v. Zurich-American Ins. Co. 479 So. 2d 571 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Brousseau v. Tucker 479 So. 2d 446 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
In reviewing factual findings based on testimony adduced in open court, we must follow the clearly wrong (manifest error)
King v. National Tea Co. 479 So. 2d 383 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Plaintiff argues that the abuse of the “much discretion” rule enunciated in Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., should not be the test in this review since the trial court erred in its factual conclusions and that the “manifest error” should be applicable.
Turner ex rel. Turner v. Rankins 479 So. 2d 404 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Florida v. Roscoe 479 So. 2d 406 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Stablier v. Big T Welding Supply Co. 479 So. 2d 418 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Roberts v. Colonial Penn Insurance Co. 479 So. 2d 426 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Achord v. K-Mart Corp. 479 So. 2d 425 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Cell-O-Mar, Inc. v. Gros 479 So. 2d 386 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Scott v. Terrebonne Lumber Co. 479 So. 2d 410 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Vallery v. STATE EX REL. DEPT. OF TRANSP. AND DEV. 480 So. 2d 818 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
Hurst v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. 478 So. 2d 1361 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
The Louisiana Supreme Court has stated that: “When there is evidence before the trier fact, which, upon its reasonable evaluation of credibility, furnishes a reasonable basis for the trial court’s finding, on review the appellate court should not disturb the factual finding in absence of manifest error.”
Pelican Electrical Contractors v. Williams 479 So. 2d 19 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
the trial judge was best able to observe the demeanor of the witnesses and evaluate their credibility.
Tusson v. Mason 479 So. 2d 25 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
“Questions of fact are generally left to the jury and the findings should not be disturbed unless they are clearly wrong.”
Clement v. Scaffolding Rental & Erection Services, Inc. 480 So. 2d 813 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Neumeyer v. Terral 478 So. 2d 1281 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
Clakeley v. Ochsner Foundation Hosp. 478 So. 2d 1335 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
The reason for this well settled principle of review is based not only upon the trial court's better capacity to evaluate live witnesses as compared to our access only to a cold record, but also upon the proper allocation of trial and appellate functions between our courts, (La.
Varnado v. Sanders 477 So. 2d 1205 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985