Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Stobart v. State Through DOTD, 617 So. 2d 880.

4685 citing documents.

Summarell v. Ross 660 So. 2d 112 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
Baumeister v. Plunkett 661 So. 2d 510 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
Stobart v. State, Through Dept. of Transportation and Development
McDuffie v. Riverwood Intern. Corp. 660 So. 2d 158 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
Stobart v. State, Through Dept. of Transportation and Development
Howell v. Service Merchandise Co., Inc. 663 So. 2d 96 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
State, in Interest of Ga 664 So. 2d 106 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
See Stobart v. State, Through Department of Transportation and Development, n. 2 (La.1993).
Cook v. New Orleans Police Department 659 So. 2d 530 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Donaldson v. Sanders 661 So. 2d 1010 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
and Development, -83 (La.
Kilpatrick v. Alliance Cas. & Reinsurance Co. 663 So. 2d 62 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
Williams v. City of Monroe 658 So. 2d 820 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
Thibodeau v. Mayor & Councilmen of Morgan City, supra ; Stobart v. State, Department of Transportation and Development
Creekmore v. Elco Maintenance 659 So. 2d 815 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
2/28/94), , and that the factfinder's choice between two permissible views of the evidence cannot be clearly wrong, "it was not [the supreme court's] purpose ...
Jefferson v. K-Mart Corp. 663 So. 2d 36 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Lacava v. Albano Cleaners 656 So. 2d 990 La. 1995
Khaled v. Windham 657 So. 2d 672 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Domangue v. Mr. Gatti's, Inc. 657 So. 2d 689 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
State Ex Rel. Guste v. Green 657 So. 2d 610 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Romero v. Western Sizzlin, Inc. 658 So. 2d 11 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Oliver v. DEPT. OF PUBLIC SAFETY & CORR. 657 So. 2d 596 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
See Stobart v. State, Through Department of Transportation and Development, n. 2 (La.1993).
Donavan v. Jones 658 So. 2d 755 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
Doucet v. Champagne 657 So. 2d 92 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Stobart v. State, Department of Transportation and Development
Smith v. Lincoln General Hosp. 658 So. 2d 256 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
Danzey v. Evergreen Presbyterian Ministries 657 So. 2d 491 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
Barre v. Nadell 657 So. 2d 514 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
was not intended to change that synthesis or to make the scope of appellate review of facts any more limited than described in Rosell ....
Dauzat v. Rapides Parish Police Jury 657 So. 2d 484 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
was not intended to change that synthesis or to make the scope of appellate review of facts any more limited than described in Rosell, Arceneaux, Canter, et al, supra.
Use v. Use 654 So. 2d 1355 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Segura v. State Farm Ins. Co. 657 So. 2d 1047 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
Comeaux v. Sam Broussard Trucking 657 So. 2d 449 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
Stobart v. State, Through DOTD
Ortego v. Jefferson Davis Parish School Bd. 657 So. 2d 378 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
Stobart v. State, Through DOTD, (La.
Williams v. Shell Oil Co. 657 So. 2d 382 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Stobart v. State, Through DOTD, (La.
Tartar v. Hymes 656 So. 2d 756 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
10, a case which involved the review of damages, that "the discretion vested in the trier of fact is `great,' and even vast," -83 (La.1993), which involved the standard of review of findings of fact, a "court of appeal may not set aside a trial court's or a jury's finding of fact in the absence of *758 `manifest error' or unless it is `clearly wrong,'" and "where two permissible views of the evidence exists, the factfinder's choice betwe
Ruttley v. Steiner 656 So. 2d 1095 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
10, a case which involved the review of damages, that “the discretion vested in the trier of fact is ‘great,’ and even vast,” -83 (La.1993), which involved the standard of review of findings of fact, a “court of appeal may not set aside a trial court’s or a jury’s finding of fact in the absence of ‘manifest error’ or unless it is ‘clearly wrong,’ ” and “where two permissible views of the evidence exists, the factfin-der’s choice between
Garlepied Transfer, Inc. v. GUARANTY BK. & TR. CO. 656 So. 2d 728 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
Guidry v. Picadilly Cafeterias, Inc. 657 So. 2d 325 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
Stobart v. State, Through DOTD
IP Timberlands Operating Co. v. Denmiss Corp. 657 So. 2d 282 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Stobart v. State, Through Department of Transportation and Development
Galloway v. STATE, DEPT. OF TRANSP. & DEVE. 654 So. 2d 1345 La. 1995
Compare Stobart v. State of Louisiana, Through DOTD
Welch v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc. 655 So. 2d 309 La. 1995
the Court of Appeal nonetheless substituted its factual findings for that of the trial court's.
Sanders v. Wysocki 655 So. 2d 713 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
Stark v. National Tea Co. 655 So. 2d 769 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
7/5/94); ; Stobart v. State, through DOTD
Young v. Logue 660 So. 2d 32 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
In Ambrose , the court stated as follows: Notwithstanding [our] it was not our purpose in that case to mandate that the trial court's factual determinations cannot ever, or hardly ever, be upset.
EM Nominee Partnership Co. v. Arkla Energy Resources 656 So. 2d 55 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
and Stobart v. State, through DODT
Panzico v. Price 658 So. 2d 1310 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
Succession of Anderson 656 So. 2d 42 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
Rowsey v. Jones 655 So. 2d 560 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
Stobart v. State, Through Dept. of Transp.
State v. Guichard 655 So. 2d 1371 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Stobart v. State, Department of Transportation and Development
Davis v. United General Insurance Co. 654 So. 2d 317 La. 1995
“A court of appeal may not set aside a trial court’s finding of fact in the absence of ‘manifest error’ or unless [the finding] is ‘clearly wrong’.”
Bynum v. Capital City Press 655 So. 2d 489 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Super Fresh/Sav-A-Center, Inc. v. Ashy-Bickham Baker 655 So. 2d 531 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Hebert v. State Department of Wildlife & Fisheries 656 So. 2d 23 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Stobart v. State, Department of Transportation and Development
Burke v. Ledig 655 So. 2d 546 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Stobart v. State, Department of Transportation and Development
Michelli v. Michelli 655 So. 2d 1342 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Stobart v. State, Through Department of Transportation and Development
Billiot v. Estate of Richardson 655 So. 2d 443 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Stobart v. State, Department of Transportation and Development