Cited by

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

1208 citing documents.

Anglin v. Anglin 30 So. 3d 746 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Lavalais v. STATE, EX REL. DOTD 26 So. 3d 895 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
Anthony Lavalais v. State of La., Dotd La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
Dexter Mitchell v. Artcrete, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
the supreme court cited Arceneaux, then further stated: [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
James Lastrapes, Et Ux. v. Progressive Insurance Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
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.”
David Guidry v. Gulf Coast Coil Tubing La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
Guidry v. GULF COAST COIL TUBING 24 So. 3d 1019 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Mitchell v. ARTCRETE, INC. 24 So. 3d 1000 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
the supreme court cited Arcen-eaux, then further stated: [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.
Lastrapes v. Progressive Security Insurance Co. 24 So. 3d 993 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
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 plaintiffs disability.”
Lavalais v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation & Development 26 So. 3d 895 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Chanda Prather Richardson v. Steven Todd Richardson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
Richardson v. Richardson 25 So. 3d 203 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Frederick Demartra, Jr. v. Louisiana Farm Bureau Casualty Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
Holmes v. Hicks 24 So. 3d 1031 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Thibodeaux v. NORTHERN TOOL & EQUIPMENT CATALOG COMPANY, INC. 24 So. 3d 1032 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Jackson v. Callaghan 24 So. 3d 1037 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2009
Broussard v. Zurich American Insurance Co. 23 So. 3d 370 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
Boggs v. Voss, 31,965 (La.App.2d Cir.6/16/99), ; Bennett v. Louisiana Farm Bureau Cas.
Peters v. GREYHOUND BUS LINES, INC. 22 So. 3d 1092 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Ory v. Shedd 17 So. 3d 521 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Ritter v. Exxon Mobile Corp. 20 So. 3d 540 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Owen v. Smith 16 So. 3d 1274 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
Green v. K-Mart Corp., 2003-2495 (La.5/25/04)
LaFleur v. M. Langenstein & Sons, Inc. 16 So. 3d 1178 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
the Supreme Court set out a two part test for the reversal of fact finder’s determinations: 1„1) The appellate court must find for the record that a reasonable factual basis does not exist for the finding of the trial court.
Lockett v. HARTENSTINE 11 So. 3d 1245 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Culler v. Adcock 11 So. 3d 1246 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Shawn Bernard v. the Hartford Insurance Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
“Whether an accident caused a person’s injuries is a question of fact which should not be reversed on appeal absent manifest error.” ().
State of Louisiana v. Timothy Glen Granger La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
State v. Granger 11 So. 3d 695 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Bernard v. Hartford Insurance 12 So. 3d 1098 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
“Whether an accident caused a person’s injuries is a question of fact which should not be reversed on appeal absent manifest error.” ().
Brewer v. J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc. 9 So. 3d 932 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Arnold v. Ouachita Parish Fire Department 12 So. 3d 461 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
Cormier , 98-2208 at pp. 6-7, 745 So.2d at 7
Watts v. Watts 10 So. 3d 855 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Renee T. Chark v. Steven Chark, Sr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
Chark v. Chark 5 So. 3d 1062 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
Merdis Cole v. Brookshire Grocery Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
Cole v. Brookshire Grocery Co. 5 So. 3d 1010 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Wooley v. Lucksinger 14 So. 3d 311 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
David L. Bienemann v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
Bienemann v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 3 So. 3d 621 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Little v. Boston Scientific Corp. 8 So. 3d 591 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Harrington v. Wilson 8 So. 3d 30 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
the supreme court announced a two-part test for the reversal of a factfinder’s determinations: first, the appellate court must find from the record that a ^reasonable factual basis does not exist for the finding of the trial court, and, second, the appellate court must further determine that the recor
Cortez v. East Jefferson General Hospital 7 So. 3d 707 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Pugh v. City of Plaquemine 996 So. 2d 702 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
Brown v. Trask 998 So. 2d 131 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
Guidry v. Castillo 995 So. 2d 50 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
Alday v. CSXT TRANSP., INC. 992 So. 2d 1094 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
Urology Clinic of No v. United Fire Ins. 993 So. 2d 803 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
Crooks v. LCS Corrections Services, Inc. 994 So. 2d 101 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
Slone v. Greber 989 So. 2d 273 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
Ferguson v. Sugar 988 So. 2d 816 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
Moss v. State 993 So. 2d 686 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008