Cited by

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

3491 citing documents.

Quality Seafood, Inc. v. Dos Gris Seafood, Inc. 388 So. 2d 95 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
Fontenot v. American Fidelity Fire Ins. Co. 386 So. 2d 165 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
Thomasee v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. 385 So. 2d 1219 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
Thibodeaux v. Hulin Marble & Granite Works, Inc. 386 So. 2d 136 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
Harkins v. Continental Oil Co. 385 So. 2d 1216 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
ompany, the Supreme Court stated: “When there is evidence before the trier of fact which, upon its reasonable evaluation of credibility, furnishes a reasonable factual basis for the trial court’s finding, on review the appellate court should not disturb this factual finding in the absence of manifest error.” when the Supreme Court added: “ ‘Manifestly erroneous’, in its simplest terms, means ‘clearly wrong’.
Cobb v. Insured Lloyds 387 So. 2d 13 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
Moreau v. Houston General Ins. Co. 386 So. 2d 151 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
Lopez v. Blue Cross of Louisiana 386 So. 2d 697 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
Lucas v. Deville 385 So. 2d 804 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
and Arceneaux v. Domingue I can see no basis for finding that the trial judge was clearly wrong.
Baptiste v. Granada 387 So. 2d 1235 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
Richard v. Southwest Louisiana Hospital Ass'n 383 So. 2d 83 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
We have carefully reviewed the evidence in this case, we cannot say that the jury's verdict was manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong.
Crater v. City of Lake Charles 387 So. 2d 623 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
Bond v. Jack 387 So. 2d 613 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
Pisciotta v. Allstate Ins. Co. 385 So. 2d 1176 La. 1980
1973); Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
Rodriguez v. City of New Orleans 384 So. 2d 1006 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
Sigue Trucking Inc. v. Brazen 385 So. 2d 28 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
Ackel v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. 385 So. 2d 30 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
Liberto v. Villard 386 So. 2d 930 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
"the appellate court should not disturb such a finding of fact unless it is clearly wrong".
Albritton v. JC Penney Co., Inc. 385 So. 2d 549 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
The standard for appellate review in Louisiana, and its progeny, 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 in the trial court; there must be a further determination that the record establishes that the finding is not clearly wrong (manifestly erroneous).
Lafleur v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 385 So. 2d 564 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
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 with the appellate court’s access only to a cold record), but also upon the proper allocation of trial and appellate functions between the respective courts.” the Supreme Court defined manifestly erroneous as meaning clearly wrong.
Istre v. Hudson Engineering Corp. 386 So. 2d 366 La. 1980
v. Koehring Co., as follows: “When there is evidence before the trier of fact which, upon its reasonable evaluation of credibility, furnishes a reasonable factual basis for the trial court’s finding, on review the appellate court should not disturb this factual finding in the absence of manifest error.” “Manifest error” as follows: We said the appellate court should not disturb this factual finding in the absence of manifest error.
Choate v. Greene 386 So. 2d 948 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
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 with the appellate court’s access only to a cold record), but also upon the proper allocation of trial and appellate functions between the respective courts.” the Supreme Court defined manifestly erroneous as meaning clearly wrong.
Matt v. Laperouse 386 So. 2d 978 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
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 with the appellate court’s access only to a cold record), but also upon the proper allocation of trial and appellate functions between the respective courts.” the Supreme Court defined manifestly erroneous as meaning clearly wrong.
Schexneider v. United Geophysical Corp. 385 So. 2d 533 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
Johnson v. Coca Cola Bottling Co., Inc. 386 So. 2d 993 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
the Supreme Court defined manifestly erroneous as meaning clearly wrong.
Martin v. AAA Brick Co., Inc. 386 So. 2d 987 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
Dofflemyer v. Gilley 384 So. 2d 435 La. 1980
Perniciaro v. Brinch 384 So. 2d 392 La. 1980
Dillon v. Rice 384 So. 2d 344 La. 1980
Goldberg v. Stauffer Eshleman Co. 384 So. 2d 531 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
See Canter v. Koehring Company, La., , and Arceneaux v. Domingue, La., .
Calecas v. Prieur 384 So. 2d 584 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
Castro v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. 384 So. 2d 587 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
Davis v. Liberty Mutual Insurance 385 So. 2d 523 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
Carter v. Chrysler Motors Corp. 384 So. 2d 838 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
J. L. Rumold & Co. v. Rault Petroleum Corp. 385 So. 2d 1237 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
Accordingly, and reverse that part of the judgment granting to plaintiff the sum of $1,004.52.
Meyers v. Basso 381 So. 2d 843 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
Cannatella v. CITY CIVIL SERV. COM'N, ETC. 381 So. 2d 1278 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
Calvary Tabernacle v. Louisiana Central Bank 384 So. 2d 814 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
Troxler v. Hertz Corp. 385 So. 2d 507 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
Canter v. Koehring Company, La., ; Arceneaux v. Domingue, La., .
Esta v. Dover Corp. 385 So. 2d 439 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
Under our Constitution of 1974, Article 5, § 10(B), this court is mandated to give a thorough review of the factual findings of the jury.
Babin v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co. 385 So. 2d 849 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
Smith v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. 385 So. 2d 858 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
Chrisham v. Blum 383 So. 2d 458 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
it is not our appellate function to substitute our evaluation of the evidence for that of the trial judge unless the record establishes that his factual conclusions are manifestly erroneous.
Harrison v. Howell 384 So. 2d 464 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
where the Supreme Court stated that the appellate court should not disturb a finding of fact unless it is clearly wrong, in which the Supreme Court reiterated that the appellate court simply is not free to substitute its own version of the facts, ho
Taylor v. Zetz 7 Up Bottling Co. 384 So. 2d 811 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
Hall v. National Life & Acc. Ins. Co. 383 So. 2d 74 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
Sleet v. Harding 383 So. 2d 122 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
Hayes v. Hayes 383 So. 2d 71 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
Willis v. Ford Motor Co. 383 So. 2d 136 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
Burns v. Town of Leesville 383 So. 2d 109 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980