Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Crowell v. City of Alexandria, 558 So. 2d 216.

40 citing documents.

Succession of Valerie Bryan Braswell La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2025
“Proof by a preponderance of the evidence means that the evidence, taken as a whole, shows that the fact or cause sought to be proven is more probable than not.” (La.
Succession of Dorothy Terrell Mouton La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2024
“Proof by a preponderance of the evidence means that the evidence, taken as a whole, shows that the fact or cause sought to be proven is more probable than not.”
In Re: J.D.P. and A.N.P., Applying for Intrafamily Adoption La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2023
“Proof by a preponderance of the evidence means that the evidence, taken as a whole, shows that the fact or cause sought to be proven is more probable than not.”
James B. Cantrelle, in his official capacity as the President of the Parish of Lafourche v. The Lafourche … La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2022
Cynthia Gray v. Andrea Barr-Ambler, Clinical Pathology Labs, Inc., Safety National Casualty and State Farm Insurance Company La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2022
Mark Shubert, Joseph Segretto and Keith Noya v. Board of Trustees of the Fire Fighter's Pension and Relief … La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2021
“Proof by a preponderance of the evidence means that the evidence, taken as a whole, shows that the fact or cause sought to be proven is more probable than not.” (La.
Lanie Farms, Inc. v. Cleco Power, LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
Lanie Farms, Inc. v. Cleco Power, LLC 259 So. 3d 414 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
art. 1672(B) ; Crowell v. City of Alexandria
Fuller v. Bissell 245 So. 3d 1169 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2018
*1173 Crowell v. City of Alexandria , (La.
Populis v. State, Department of Transportation & Development 222 So. 3d 975 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2017
App. 5 Cir. 7/9/98); , (La.
Town of Arcadia v. Arcadia Chamber of Commerce 195 So. 3d 23 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
State v. Pernell 127 So. 3d 18 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. 2002 Chevrolet Trail Blazer 91 So. 3d 487 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
App. 5 Cir. 7/9/98); (); Hanks v. Entergy Corp., 06-477, p. 19 (La.12/18/06); (“Proof is sufficient to constitute a preponderance when the entirety of the evidence both direct and circumstantial, shows the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.”).
Coordinating & Development Corp. v. D.H. Patten Children Co. 87 So. 3d 214 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
Williams v. Allen, supra.
Settles v. Paul 61 So. 3d 854 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
Chandler v. Chandler, 45,-308 (La.App.2d Cir.5/19/10), ; Lowe v. Skyjacker Suspensions, 45,058 (La.App.2d Cir.3/3/10), .
Hunter v. James Machine Works, Inc. 48 So. 3d 1103 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
Bartley v. Fondren, 43,779 (La.App.2d Cir.12/03/08), .
Connie L. Parker v. Elliot R. Champagne La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
“‘Proof by a preponderance of the evidence means that the evidence, taken as a whole, shows that the fact or cause sought to be proven is more probable than not.’ ” Rathborne v. Rathborne, 06-1518, 07-0870, p. 9 (La.App.
Parker v. Champagne 30 So. 3d 1188 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
Deronza Thomas Fobbs v. Larry Marvell Fobbs La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
“‘Proof by a preponderance of the evidence means that the evidence, taken as a whole, shows that the fact or cause sought to be proven is more probable than not.’ (La.
Fobbs v. Fobbs 25 So. 3d 168 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
Bartley v. Fondren 999 So. 2d 146 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
Silva v. Calk, 30,085 (La.App.
Rathborne v. Rathborne 999 So. 2d 816 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
Ramsey's Mfg. Jewelers, Inc. v. Ramsey 924 So. 2d 1045 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
Smith v. Knight 907 So. 2d 831 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
Furlough v. Union Pacific R. Co., 33,658 (La.App.
Bozeman v. State 787 So. 2d 357 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
Dickens v. Commercial Union Ins. Co. 762 So. 2d 1193 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
Liberto v. Rapides Parish Police Jury, 95-456 (La.App.
Industrial Roofing v. Jc Dellinger Mem. 751 So. 2d 928 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
Lopez v. STATE, LOUISIANA HEALTH CARE 721 So. 2d 518 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
State v. One (1) 1991 Pontiac Trans Sport Van 716 So. 2d 446 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
Cox v. Total Petroleum, Inc. 694 So. 2d 619 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
Southern Message Service, Inc. v. Commercial Union Ins.
Williams v. Brooks 693 So. 2d 302 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
Citgo Petroleum Corp. v. Yeargin, Inc. 690 So. 2d 154 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
Lafleur v. Desormeaux 692 So. 2d 617 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
Continental Ins. v. THREE SEASONS 649 So. 2d 1220 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
Southern Message Service, Inc. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co. 647 So. 2d 398 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
State v. 77,014.00 DOLLARS 607 So. 2d 576 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
Schroeder v. Lacy 600 So. 2d 146 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
McCullough v. Regional Transit Authority 593 So. 2d 731 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
Home Insurance Co. v. National Tea Co. 577 So. 2d 65 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
Perez v. State, Through DOTD 578 So. 2d 1199 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991