Cited by

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

1208 citing documents.

Hurt v. Barrois 872 So. 2d 1191 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
Marks v. Ohmeda, Inc. 871 So. 2d 1148 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
Gardache v. City of New Orleans 874 So. 2d 247 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
Sheralon F. Moore v. Pitt Grill La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
Freeman, 93-1530 at p. 5, 630 So.2d at 737-38
Regan v. Lakeland Medical Center 871 So. 2d 453 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
Moore v. Pitt Grill 871 So. 2d 1128 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
Freeman , 93-1530 at p. 5, 630 So.2d at 737-38
Trayanoff v. Oak Island Land Co. 870 So. 2d 349 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
Henderson v. Nissan Motor Corp., 2003-606 (La.2/6/04), , citing
Beaumont v. Exxon Corp. 868 So. 2d 976 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
Carmouche v. Carmouche 869 So. 2d 224 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
Henderson v. Nissan Motor Corp. 869 So. 2d 62 La. 2004
this Court articulated a two-part test to guide the lower courts when contemplating the reversal of a trial court's factual 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 furth
Alexander v. Ford 866 So. 2d 890 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
Williams v. Louisiana Medical Mutual Insurance Co. 866 So. 2d 306 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
the Louisiana Supreme Court posited a two-part test for the reversal of a factfinder’s determinations: *310 |31) 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 record
Lyons v. Terrebonne Parish School Board 868 So. 2d 739 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Mitchell v. Winnfield Holding Corp. 861 So. 2d 931 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
Michael W. Mitchell v. Winnfield Holding Corp. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
Johnson v. City of Winnfield 862 So. 2d 433 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
Brown v. Schwegmann 861 So. 2d 862 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
Thonn v. Cook 863 So. 2d 628 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
the Louisiana Supreme Court stated: At the outset, we note that this case is not fully governed by the principles set forth in Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.
Cheairs v. State Ex Rel. DOTD 861 So. 2d 536 La. 2003
in which we noted the fact that the risk of a rear-end collision is clearly within the scope of the statutory prohibition against following too closely.
Bergeron v. Albert 861 So. 2d 269 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Inzinna v. Walcott 868 So. 2d 721 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Hollins v. People Works 861 So. 2d 258 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Cooper v. St. Tammany Parish School Bd. 862 So. 2d 1001 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Richard Sterling v. Asplundh Tree Expert Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
Freeman, 93-1530 at p. 5, 630 So.2d at 737-38
Bonin v. Ferrellgas, Inc. 855 So. 2d 781 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
Sterling v. Asplundh Tree Expert Co. 856 So. 2d 125 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
Freeman , 93-1530 at p. 5, 630 So.2d at 737-38 ; (La.
Cousin v. Slidell Memorial Hospital 857 So. 2d 576 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Authement v. Wal-Mart 857 So. 2d 564 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Integrity Flooring v. Mid South Contractors 857 So. 2d 582 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
In delineating the manifest error standard of review, : [I]f an appellate court concludes that the trial court's factual findings are clearly wrong, the mere fact that some record evidence appears which would furnish a reasonable factual basis for the contested findings does not require affirmance.
Roan v. Apache Chemical Transporters 855 So. 2d 920 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
Johnson v. T & LNAS/Domino Sugar 854 So. 2d 985 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Stobart, 617 So.2d at 882 ().
Burnett v. Lewis 852 So. 2d 519 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
the 1 flLouisiana Supreme Court posited a two-part test for the reversal of a factfinder’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 record est
Wopara v. STATE EMPLOYEES'GROUP BEN. PROG. 859 So. 2d 67 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Dale v. Avondale Industries, Inc. 859 So. 2d 44 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Kemp v. East Baton Rouge City Parish 858 So. 2d 537 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Penn v. Options, Inc. 858 So. 2d 557 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Poland v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 885 So. 2d 1144 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Broyard v. Rainer 850 So. 2d 793 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Degrasse v. Elevating Boats, Inc. 850 So. 2d 40 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Faulkner v. McCarty Corp. 853 So. 2d 24 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
In Re Succession of Gilbert 850 So. 2d 733 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. v. MLT CON. 849 So. 2d 762 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
Shamburger v. Ribbeck Const. Co. 847 So. 2d 766 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
Citgo Petroleum Corp. v. Frantz 847 So. 2d 734 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
Freeman , 93-1530 at p. 5, 630 So.2d at 737-38
Russell v. Allstate Insurance Co. 848 So. 2d 730 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
the Supreme Court announced a two-part test for the reversal of a fact finder’s determinations: 1.
STATE, DSS, EX REL. S. McC. v. JA McC. 848 So. 2d 121 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
Woodbury v. DEPT. OF TRANSP. AND DEVELOPMENT 848 So. 2d 104 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
Williams v. Harris 848 So. 2d 26 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Todd v. Wal-Mart 849 So. 2d 682 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Lakewood Estates Homeowner's Ass'n v. Markle 847 So. 2d 633 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003