Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Lirette v. State Farm Ins. Co., 563 So. 2d 850.

225 citing documents.

Industrial Roofing v. Jc Dellinger Mem. 751 So. 2d 928 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
Franklin Southland Printing v. Noab 739 So. 2d 977 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
Martin v. Lakeside Bancshares, Inc. 731 So. 2d 1045 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
3 Cir. 5/8/96) ; , this court stated, “While the ultimate determination of the parties’ intent is a mixed question of fact and law, the determination of the subjective intent of the parties to the exchange is a question of fact....” -53 (La.1990) (citations omitted), the Louisiana Supreme Court discussed the reviewing court’s role in evaluating the trial court’s inferences of fact and evaluations of credibility: It is well settled that a court of appeal may not set aside a finding of fact by a t
Landry v. Simon 732 So. 2d 587 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
Haile v. City of Monroe 722 So. 2d 1192 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
A trial court's factual findings are accorded great deference, Lirette v. State Farm Ins., Co., Adams v. Commercial National Bank in Shreveport, 27,360 (La.App.2d Cir.09/27/95), , and the court of appeal will not reverse such findings if reasonable in light of the record in its entirety.
Pesson v. Reynolds 727 So. 2d 507 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
Cormier v. THE Ins. Co. 716 So. 2d 387 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
Brasseaux v. Town of Mamou 713 So. 2d 742 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
Colvin v. E.F. Discount Foods, Inc. 714 So. 2d 99 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
Lirette v. State Farm Ins., Co.
Mullins v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. 697 So. 2d 750 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
-53 (La.1990), the Louisiana Supreme Court reversed a judgment of this court, noting that we had improperly conducted a de novo review in disregarding portions of the plaintiff's witnesses' testimony and in concluding that the jury was manifestly erroneous in rejecting part of the testimony of the defendant's expe
State in Interest of Vinson v. Smith 697 So. 2d 628 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
Co., Choyce v. Sisters of Incarnate Word, 25,958 (La.App.2d Cir. 8/19/94), .
Kendrick v. Bill Liberto Enterprises 698 So. 2d 22 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
Smith v. Martin Mills, Inc. 701 So. 2d 680 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
Todd v. State 685 So. 2d 313 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1997
Co., Sistler v. Liberty Mut.
Achee v. National Tea Co. 686 So. 2d 121 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
Baudoin v. Opie 685 So. 2d 553 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
Foster v. Liberty Rice Mill 690 So. 2d 792 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
Rather, after observing that the manifest error rule extends to credibility determinations based upon conflicting medical testimony, and authority therein, we conclude that the hearing officer was not wrong in understanding the emphasized language to mean that Ms. Foster's work-related disability prevented her from performing any kind of work.
Todd v. State ex rel. Department of Social Services, Office of Community Services 685 So. 2d 310 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
Co., Sistler v. Liberty Mut.
Williams v. State, ex rel. Department of Wildlife & Fisheries 684 So. 2d 1018 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
Pierce v. Milford 688 So. 2d 1093 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
Sistler v. Liberty Mutual Ins.
Pierce v. Milford 688 So. 2d 1093 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
Sistler v. Liberty Mutual Ins.
Renter v. Willis-Knighton Medical Center 679 So. 2d 603 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
Hickman v. Exide, Inc. 679 So. 2d 527 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
Co., Townsend v. Westinghouse Elevator Corp., 25,966 (La.App.
Ardoin v. State, Dept. of Transp. 679 So. 2d 928 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
Additionally, -853 (La.1990), the Louisiana Supreme Court discussed the standard of review when there is a conflict of expert witness testimony: It is well settled that a court of appeal may not set aside a finding of fact by a trial court or a jury in the absence of "manifest error" or unless it is "clearly wrong," and where t
Silver v. Butler 676 So. 2d 242 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
-53 (La.1990), the Louisiana Supreme Court, in reversing an appellate court decision, stated: It is well settled that a court of appeal may not set aside a finding of fact by a trial court or a jury in the absence of “manifest error” or unless it is “clearly wrong,” and where there is conflict in the testimony, re
Guillory v. Insurance Co. of North America 671 So. 2d 1112 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
Huff v. Union Pacific Railroad 670 So. 2d 444 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
Atwood v. State Farm Automobile Insurance Co. 666 So. 2d 1187 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Rogers v. Roch 663 So. 2d 811 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
Johnson v. Lull Enterprises, Inc. 663 So. 2d 403 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Fontenette v. McDermott, Inc. 694 So. 2d 266 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Cobb v. Kleinpeter 663 So. 2d 236 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Cobb v. Kleinpeter 663 So. 2d 236 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
Adams v. Commercial Nat. Bank in Shreveport 661 So. 2d 636 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
Co., Virgil v. American Guarantee and Liability Ins.
Doucet v. Champagne 657 So. 2d 92 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Galloway v. STATE, DEPT. OF TRANSP. & DEVE. 654 So. 2d 1345 La. 1995
Co., Sistler v. Liberty Mut.
Hebert v. State Department of Wildlife & Fisheries 656 So. 2d 23 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Stobart, 617 So.2d at 883 .
Billiot v. Estate of Richardson 655 So. 2d 443 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
State ex rel. Department of Social Services v. Ashy 653 So. 2d 20 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Johnson v. NATCO 651 So. 2d 494 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
Wells v. Morgan Gas Co. 651 So. 2d 951 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Arnold v. Town of Ball 651 So. 2d 313 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
Co., -53 (La.1990); (La.App.
Griffin v. Audubon Ins. Co. 649 So. 2d 72 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Southern Message Service, Inc. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co. 647 So. 2d 398 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
Maeder v. Williams 652 So. 2d 1005 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
Richard v. Dupuis 649 So. 2d 718 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Spears v. Jefferson Parish School Bd. 646 So. 2d 1104 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1994
Moran v. Harris 645 So. 2d 1244 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Hebert v. Hartford Ins. Co. of the Midwest 649 So. 2d 631 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
Muscarello v. Ayo 644 So. 2d 846 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Stobart v. State, Through Department of Transportation and Development, 617 So.2d at 883 .