Cited by

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

4685 citing documents.

Brankline v. Capuano 656 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
Freyou v. Iberia Parish School Bd. 657 So. 2d 161 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
Blanda v. Piggly Wiggly 657 So. 2d 106 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Stobart v. State, Through DOTD, Bruno v. Harbert Intern.
Smith v. Audubon Insurance Co. 656 So. 2d 11 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Id.; Stobart v. State, through DOTD
Nuckley v. Gail M. Woods, Inc. 654 So. 2d 840 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Stobart v. State, Department of Transportation & Development
Plummer v. Marriott Corp. 654 So. 2d 843 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
See also, Ambrose v. New Orleans Police Amb.
Johnson v. Chateau Living Center 653 So. 2d 1367 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Lewis v. STATE, DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION & DEV. 654 So. 2d 311 La. 1995
Stobart v. State, Through DOTD
Medline Industries, Inc. v. All-Med Supply & Equip. 653 So. 2d 830 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
See Stobart v. State, Through Department of Transportation and Development, n. 2 (La.1993).
Haydel v. Hercules Transport, Inc. 654 So. 2d 418 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Stobart v. State, Department of Transportation and Development
Miley v. US Fidelity and Guar. Co. 659 So. 2d 792 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Stobart v. State, Through Department of Transportation and Development, (La.
Bailey v. Martin Brower Co. 658 So. 2d 1299 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Stobart v. State, Department of Transportation and Development
Clement v. Frey 653 So. 2d 1341 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
McCurdy v. Ault 654 So. 2d 716 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Stobart v. State, Department of Transportation and Development
Usé v. Usé 654 So. 2d 1355 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
McCurdy v. Ault 654 So. 2d 716 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Stobart v. State, Department of Transportation and Development
Emoakemeh v. Southern University 654 So. 2d 474 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Stobart v. State, Department of Transportation and Development
Law v. City of Eunice 653 So. 2d 149 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
Stobart v. State of Louisiana, through DOTD
Alford v. Alford 653 So. 2d 133 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
and reiterated in Stobart v. State, DOTD, we cannot say that the trial court erred in valuing the tools and equipment at $12,000.00.
Helmer Directional Drilling, Inc. v. Dexco, Inc. 653 So. 2d 1245 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
A court of appeal may not set aside a trial court’s finding of fact in the absence of “manifest error” or unless it is “clearly wrong.” Stobart v. State Through DOTD, *1249 ().
Fuge v. Uiterwyk 653 So. 2d 707 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
Simon v. Fasig-Tipton Co. 652 So. 2d 1351 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
Stewart v. Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Co. 657 So. 2d 1327 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
Cree Oil Co. v. Home Ins. Co. 653 So. 2d 620 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
For a complete discussion of the standard of appellate review, see Stobart v. State, DOTD
Succession of Mydland 653 So. 2d 8 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
See Stobart v. State, Through Department of Transportation and Development, n. 2 (La.1993).
Mitchell v. State Farm 652 So. 2d 652 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Patin v. Duplessis Pontiac-Buick-GMC Trucks, Inc., (La.App.
Love v. Waterbed Sleep Shoppe, Inc. 652 So. 2d 650 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Am-brose v. Neiv Orleans Police Dep’t Ambulance Serv., 93-3099, p. 6 (La.1994); -221
Kennedy v. Johnny F. Smith Trucking 652 So. 2d 526 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
See Stobart v. State, Through Department of Transportation and Development, n. 2 (La.1993).
Carroll v. Evangeline Parish Police Jury 651 So. 2d 424 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Cajun Bag and Supply v. Baptiste 651 So. 2d 943 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
Green v. Conagra Broiler Co. 651 So. 2d 335 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
Blackwell v. St. Romain Oil Co. 651 So. 2d 441 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,” -883 (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 exist, the factfinder’s choice between t
Wells v. Morgan Gas Co. 651 So. 2d 951 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Phillips v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc. 650 So. 2d 1259 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
Stobart v. State, Through DOTD, -83 (La.1993).
Ferrell v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. 650 So. 2d 742 La. 1995
In affirming the jury's findings, the Court of Appeal stated: Recently, shows that the scope of appellate review of findings of fact is extremely limited.
Maranto v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. 650 So. 2d 757 La. 1995
Weatherford v. Commercial Union Ins. 650 So. 2d 763 La. 1995
Gamino v. Lakeside Hosp. 652 So. 2d 36 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
10, a case which involved the review of damages, that "the discretion vested in *43 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 factfinder's choice between th
Ranger Ins. Co. v. Mancuso 652 So. 2d 28 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
Cooley v. K-Mart Corp. 650 So. 2d 835 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Stobart v. State, DOTD, -83 (La.1993).
Fayard v. Landry 651 So. 2d 1370 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
Stobart v. State, Department of Transportation and Development
Frizzell v. Lee 652 So. 2d 55 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Hebert v. Hebert 650 So. 2d 436 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
Hasha v. Calcasieu Parish Police Jury 651 So. 2d 865 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
Elaborating recently on the manifest error doctrine, the Louisiana Supreme Court stated in Stobart v. State of Louisiana, Through DOTD, -83 (La.1993), as follows: "...
Hoyt v. Wood/Chuck Chipper Corp. 651 So. 2d 1344 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
The basic issue is: or whether they are free to fashion new rules that achieve what they sincerely believe to be an equitable result.
Bundren v. Affiliated Nursing Homes 649 So. 2d 1177 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
Hi-Tech Timber v. Valley Elec. Member. 649 So. 2d 1203 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
Stobart v. State, through DOTD
STATE, DEPT. OF TRANSP. & DEV. v. Schwegmann Westside Expressway, Inc. 651 So. 2d 1359 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
See also Stobart v. State, Through Dept. of Transportation and Development, -83 (La.1993) (discussing manifest error standard of review).
Mistich v. Volkswagen of Germany, Inc. 650 So. 2d 385 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
Casten v. Cordell 649 So. 2d 123 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
1989), and more recently in Stobart v. State, through DOTD, we find that the trial court's conclusion that Cordell and Powell had a partnership, joint venture or agency relationship, such that Cordell is liable for the consultation agreement, was clearly wrong.