Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Mart v. Hill, 505 So. 2d 1120.

1208 citing documents.

Anderson v. Eckerd Corp. 939 So. 2d 386 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
Richard G. Trahan v. Merry Lane Manley La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
.to affirm the trier of fact's refusal to accept as credible uncontradicted testimony or greatly preponderant objectively-corroborated testimony where the record indicates no sound reason for its rejection and where the factual finding itself has been reached by overlooking applicable legal principles.” (citing West v. Bayou Vista Manor, Inc., ).
Trahan v. Manley 933 So. 2d 251 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
(citing West v. Bayou Vista Manor, Inc., ).
Watters v. Department of Social Services 929 So. 2d 267 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
Norfleet v. LIFEGUARD TRANSP. SERVICE, INC. 934 So. 2d 846 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
Bergeron v. Williams 933 So. 2d 803 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
QUILIO & ASSOC. v. Plaquemines Parish Gov't 931 So. 2d 1129 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
Magee v. Abek, Inc. 934 So. 2d 800 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
Teresa Allen v. Glenn Edward Belgard, Et Ux La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Adrian Broussard v. Lafayette Parish School Board La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Rose A. Rose v. Maison Deville Care Center La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Freeman, 93-1530 at p. 5, 630 So.2d at 737-38
Broussard v. Lafayette Parish School Bd. 926 So. 2d 713 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Allen v. Belgard 925 So. 2d 1275 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Rose v. Maison Deville Care Center 927 So. 2d 625 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Freeman , 93-1530 at p. 5, 630 So.2d at 737-38
Elliott v. Amato and Creely 934 So. 2d 779 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
Seidl v. Zatarain's, Inc. 927 So. 2d 557 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
Roberts v. Thibodaux Healthcare Center 934 So. 2d 84 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
Payne v. Orleans Parish School Bd. 929 So. 2d 121 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
Leaf v. Leaf 929 So. 2d 131 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
the Louisiana Supreme Court reiterated the two-part test for the reversal of a fact finder's determinations: (1) the appellate court must find from the record that a reasonable factual basis does not exist for the finding of the trial court, and (2) the appellate court must further determine that the
M & L Industries, LLC v. Derek Hailey La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
M & L INDUSTRIES, LLC v. Hailey 923 So. 2d 869 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Rapides Parish Police Jury v. Grant Parish Police Jury La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Rapides Parish Police Jury v. Grant Parish Police Jury 924 So. 2d 357 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
Keller v. Messina 921 So. 2d 1162 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
the Louisiana Supreme Court referenced the jurisprudential precept that "a following motorist in a rear-end collision is presumed to have breached the standard of conduct prescribed in La.[R.S.]
Shaunn Caillier McCorvey v. Derriel Carlton McCorvey La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Daryl Lebert v. McNeese State University La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Freeman, 630 So.2d at 737-38
Melinda Keller and Joseph Keller v. Salvador Messina La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
32:81(A) provides that “[t]he driver of a motor vehicle shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard for the speed of such vehicle, and the traffic upon and the condition of the highway.” the Louisiana Supreme Court referenced the jurisprudential precept that “a following motorist in a rear-end collision is presumed to have breached the standard of conduct prescribed in La.[R.S.]
Lebert v. McNeese State University 932 So. 2d 678 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Freeman, 630 So.2d at 737-38 ; (La.
McCorvey v. McCorvey 922 So. 2d 694 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Williams v. Cooper 926 So. 2d 571 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
Landry v. Furniture Center 920 So. 2d 304 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Freeman, 630 So.2d at 737-38 ; (La.
Dalton Landry v. Furniture Center La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Freeman, 630 So.2d at 737-38
James E. Viviano, Et Ux. v. Progressive Security Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Blackshear, 94-765, p. 10-11; 647 So.2d at 595; citing Mart
Viviano v. Progressive SEC. Ins. Co. 920 So. 2d 313 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Mary E. Cormier v. Robert Colston and Allstate Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
If the factual findings are manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong such that the plaintiff is entitled to an award for a particular category of damages, and the jury fails to make such an award, the reviewing court is to perform a As an example, part of the stipulated past medical expenses was the cost of the MRI, which, when performed, revealed the injury for which Dr. Foret recommended surgery.
Richard Romero v. Grey Wolf Drilling Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
3 Cir. 4/6/05), -135 ( ).
Cormier v. Colston 918 So. 2d 541 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
If the factual findings are manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong such that the plaintiff is entitled to an award for a particular category of damages, and the jury fails to make such an award, the reviewing court is to perform a
Romero v. Grey Wolf Drilling Co. 918 So. 2d 1199 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
3 Cir. 4/6/05), -135 ( ).
Hamilton v. Wild 917 So. 2d 695 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
Henry v. Parsons 917 So. 2d 1153 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
Johnson ex rel. Johnson v. City of Shreveport 914 So. 2d 1212 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
Rao v. Rao 927 So. 2d 356 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
and Biondo v. Biondo, 99-0890, p. 4 (La.App.
Lafayette City Parish v. Dien's Auto 916 So. 2d 384 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
Lafayette City Parish Consolidated Government v. Dien's Auto Salvage, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
Shaunn Caillier McCorvey v. Derriel Carlton McCorvey La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
McCorvey v. McCorvey 916 So. 2d 357 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
Gates v. Honey 909 So. 2d 1025 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
Stephen P. Basco, Et Ux. v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
However, this principle of appellate review applies only when a litigant “questions the adequacy of a monetary award in a case which is otherwise uncomplicated by factual errors relating to the cause or duration of the plaintiff’s disability.”
Basco v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. 909 So. 2d 660 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
Frankel v. Exxon Mobil Corp. 923 So. 2d 55 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005