Cited by

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

4682 citing documents.

Giddens v. USAA Property & Casualty Insurance Co. 644 So. 2d 827 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Stobart v. State, through Department of Transportation and Development
Brown v. Automotive Cas. Ins. Co. 644 So. 2d 723 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Stobart v. State, Department of Transportation and Development
Muscarello v. Ayo 644 So. 2d 846 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Stobart v. State, Through Department of Transportation and Development
Harris v. Bronco Const. Co. 644 So. 2d 805 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Williams v. Capitol Steel 644 So. 2d 705 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Patin v. Duplessis Pontiac-Buick-GMC Trucks, Inc., (La.App.
Alessi v. Belanger 644 So. 2d 778 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
White v. STATE, DEPT. OF PUBLIC SAFETY & CORRECTIONS 644 So. 2d 684 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Rivere v. Union Pacific R. Co. 647 So. 2d 1140 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Stobart v. State, Department of Transportation and Development
Alford v. Environmental Monitoring 646 So. 2d 961 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
In determining whether such a finding is manifestly erroneous, at 882-883 (La.
Karam v. Missouri Pacific Railroad 643 So. 2d 451 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Stobart v. State of Louisiana, through DOTD, (La.
Phelps v. White 645 So. 2d 698 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
Stobart v. State, Department of Transportation and Development
In Re HW 644 So. 2d 225 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
Band v. First Bankcard Center 644 So. 2d 211 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
Graham v. Georgia-Pacific Corp. 643 So. 2d 352 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
Stobart v. State, through DOTD
Rudd v. Atlas Processing Refinery 644 So. 2d 402 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
most recently stated the standard of review: 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."
Quick v. Murphy Oil Co. 643 So. 2d 1291 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
Stobart v. State, Department of Transportation & Development, (La.
Vernon v. Wade Correctional Institute 642 So. 2d 684 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
Bernard v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. 645 So. 2d 1157 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
More importantly, and since this case is designated for publication, I strongly disagree with the author’s characterization of the record and evidence presented in Stobart v. State, Through Department of Transportation and Development, (La.
Choyce v. SISTERS 642 So. 2d 287 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
Edwards v. K & B, INC. 641 So. 2d 1040 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
Hamilton v. Kelley 641 So. 2d 981 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
Stobart v. State of Louisiana, DOTD
Lewis v. State 642 So. 2d 260 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
Greer v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 641 So. 2d 1053 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Horton v. State Farm Ins. Co. 641 So. 2d 993 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
McElwee v. McElwee 649 So. 2d 975 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Stobart v. State, Through Department of Transportation and Development, n. 2 (La.
West Jefferson Levee D. v. Coast Quality 640 So. 2d 1258 La. 1994
This court recently reiterated the jurisprudential rules regarding the standard of review of factual findings in Stobart v. State Through Department of Transportation and *1278 Development
Morris v. People's Bank & Trust Co. of Natchitoches 642 So. 2d 225 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
Nigreville v. Federated Rural Elec. Ins. Co. 642 So. 2d 216 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
and most recently in Stobart v. State, through DOTD, (La.
New Orleans Property Development, Ltd. v. Aetna Cas. 642 So. 2d 1312 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Stobart v. State, Department of Transportation and Development
Ambrose v. New Orleans Police Amb. Serv. 639 So. 2d 216 La. 1994
Const. art. 5, § 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 *221 "where two permissible views of the evidence exists, the factfinder's choice betwe
Theriot v. Lasseigne 640 So. 2d 1305 La. 1994
In order to reverse a factfinder's determinations of fact, an appellate court must review the record in its entirety and meet the following two-part test as set out by this court in Stobart v. State, Through DOTD, : 1) An appellate court must find from the record that a reasonable factual basis does not exist for the finding of the trial court, and 2) the appellate court must further determine that the record establishes that the factfinder is clearly wrong (manifestly erroneous).
Meany v. Meany 639 So. 2d 229 La. 1994
( Arceneaux v. Domingue, *237 ).
Turner v. Massiah 641 So. 2d 610 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1994
Gilchrist v. Ozone Spring Water Co. 639 So. 2d 489 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
Neyrey v. Touro Infirmary 639 So. 2d 1214 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
Stobart v. State, Department of Transportation & Development
Moore v. Gencorp, Inc. 641 So. 2d 592 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
DeRouen v. Audirsch 639 So. 2d 476 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
Orillion v. Carter 639 So. 2d 461 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Stobart v. State, Through Department of Transportation and Development
Clark v. Lockhart 638 So. 2d 1189 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Stobart v. State, Department of Transportation and Development
Farrill v. Hammond State School 639 So. 2d 449 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Stobart v. State, Department of Transportation and Development
Comeaux v. Basin Marine, Inc. 640 So. 2d 833 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
In Stobart v. State, Department of Transportation and Development, -83 (La.1993), the supreme court commented on the manifest error/clearly wrong standard as applied to factual findings based largely on the credibility of fact witnesses.
Rhodes v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc. 638 So. 2d 1168 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
The standard of review utilized in cases such as this is set forth in Stobart v. State of Louisiana, through Department of Transportation and Development, , (La.1993) at 882-883: 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.'
Cochran v. American Advantage Mortg. Co. 638 So. 2d 1235 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Chambers v. Graybiel 639 So. 2d 361 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
Cockerhem v. K & B Drugs, Inc. 639 So. 2d 414 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
Ball v. Bossier Rural Electric Membership Corp. 640 So. 2d 1382 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
Thomas v. Bryant 639 So. 2d 378 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
Stobart v. State of Louisiana, through DOTD, (La.
Mayo v. Nissan Motor Corp. 639 So. 2d 773 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
Harrison v. Myers 639 So. 2d 402 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
Stobart v. State of Louisiana, DOTD, Dismuke v. Grambling State University, 25,482 (La.App.
Fawer, Brian, Hardy & Zatzkis v. Howes 639 So. 2d 329 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
Stobart v. State, Through Dept. of Transportation

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by