Cited by

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

4685 citing documents.

Lennard v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 649 So. 2d 1114 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
Mistretta v. Shoney's, Inc. 650 So. 2d 301 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
ANALYSIS It is well settled that 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.”
Tabora v. City of Kenner 650 So. 2d 319 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
In Stobart v. State, through DOTD, the court restated the principle that a factfinder's choice between two permissible views of the evidence "cannot be manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong;" the courts of appeal were instructed to give great, "even vast" deference t
Leblanc v. Hughes 649 So. 2d 1063 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Gaines v. Ryan's Family Steakhouse, Inc. 654 So. 2d 704 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
We review the trial court’s findings in light of Stobart v. State, Department of Transportation and Development, at 882 (La.1993) wherein the court stated: 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.” ...
King v. Gulf Coast Construction, Inc. 648 So. 2d 498 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
E.G., Stobart v. State, Through Dept. of Transportation and Development
Bradford v. Winn Dixie of Louisiana, Inc. 648 So. 2d 464 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Stobart v. State, Through Dept. of Transportation, -88 (La.1993).
Andrus v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 650 So. 2d 275 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Fraser v. Ochsner Foundation Hosp. 648 So. 2d 1081 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1994
and the cases cited therein.
Locke v. Sheriff, Parish of Jefferson 694 So. 2d 257 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1994
as follows: 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."
Tassin v. Golden Rule Ins. Co. 649 So. 2d 1050 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Stobart v. State, Department of Transportation *1055 and Development
Odom v. Security Industrial Insurance Co. 649 So. 2d 37 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Stobart v. State, Through Department of Transportation and Development, n. 2 (La.
Angeron v. Martin 649 So. 2d 40 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Drury v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. 659 So. 2d 738 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Guidroz v. STATE, THROUGH DOTD 648 So. 2d 1361 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Stobart v. State, Department of Transportation and Development
McCoy v. Monroe Timber Co. 647 So. 2d 1383 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
The standard of review which we must apply in examining the actions of a trier of fact was most recently expounded upon by our supreme court in Stobart v. State, Through Department of Transportation and Development, -883 (La.1993), wherein the court stated: 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.”
Hawkins v. Ashuca Co. 649 So. 2d 766 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Stobart v. State, DOTD, (defining manifest error/clearly wrong doctrine).
Creed v. Creed 647 So. 2d 1362 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
See Stobart v. State, DOTD, (La.
Bookman v. Ciolino 648 So. 2d 982 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Brown v. Beauregard Elec. Co-Op., Inc. 647 So. 2d 668 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
Romaguera v. Piccadilly Cafeterias, Inc. 648 So. 2d 1000 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1994
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 exist, the factfinder's choice between the
Hines v. Remington Arms Co., Inc. 648 So. 2d 331 La. 1994
7/5/94); ; Stobart v. State, through DOTD, (La.
Succession of Woodrow Wilson Melton 649 So. 2d 759 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Soileau v. Matte 647 So. 2d 617 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
See Stobart v. State, Through Department of Transportation and Development
Alexander v. State, Dept. of Health & Hospitals 648 So. 2d 11 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Cornish v. STATE, DEPT. OF TRANSP. AND DEVELOP. & DEV. 647 So. 2d 1170 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Stobart v. State, Through Department of Transportation and Development, n. 2 (La.1993).
Penton v. SIEMENS ENERGY AND AUTOMATION 646 So. 2d 496 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
See also Stobart v. State, Through Department of Transportation and Development, -83 (La.1993) (discussing clearly wrong/manifest error standard); (same).
Girvan v. New Orleans Pub. Serv. Inc. 646 So. 2d 481 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
Welch v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc. 645 So. 2d 647 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
[6] to review the record in its entirety to determine whether the trial court's finding was clearly wrong or manifestly erroneous.
Maynor v. Vosburg 648 So. 2d 411 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
Bush v. Arrow International 646 So. 2d 1173 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Rosell, 549 So.2d at 844-45 .” Stobart v. State, Through DOTD, -83 (La.1993).
Alleman v. Brownie Drilling Co. 647 So. 2d 371 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
Stobart v. State, through DOTD, -83 (La.1993).
Dupin v. Chambley 649 So. 2d 704 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Richard v. Dupuis 649 So. 2d 718 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Salley v. Salley 647 So. 2d 1164 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
Drury v. Kitchen 645 So. 2d 1286 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
Koepp v. Sea-Land Service, Inc. 645 So. 2d 1269 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
Schexnayder v. Perkins 646 So. 2d 1065 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Vedros v. Massiha 646 So. 2d 1120 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Thibodeaux v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co. 647 So. 2d 351 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Stobart v. State, Department of Transportation and Development
American Lung Ass'n of Louisiana, Inc. v. State 645 So. 2d 1219 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Stobart v. State, Through Department of Transportation and Development, n. 2 (La.
Putman v. Commercial Union Insurance 645 So. 2d 1250 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Stobart v. State, *1253 Department of Transportation and Development
Caro v. Louisiana & Delta Railroad 646 So. 2d 435 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
On factual questions, the standard of review set forth in Stobart v. State, Department of Development and Transportation, makes it clear that this court may not set aside a trial court’s finding unless we find from the record that a reasonable factual basis does not exist for the trial court’s ruling, and that the record establishes the finding is clearly wrong (manifestly erroneous).
Barlow v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 645 So. 2d 1256 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Moran v. Harris 645 So. 2d 1244 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
VERMILION BAY v. Phillips Petroleum Co. 646 So. 2d 408 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
Randolph v. General Motors Corp. 646 So. 2d 1019 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Davidson v. Shreveport Airport Authority 645 So. 2d 244 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
Adkins v. Burris Mill & Feed, Inc. 644 So. 2d 839 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Porche v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc. 644 So. 2d 699 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
The standard of review by an appellate court of the jury's findings is the "manifest error clearly wrong"

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by