Cited by

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

4682 citing documents.

Saussy v. Saussy 638 So. 2d 711 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
Stobart v. State of Louisiana, Through DOTD
Williams v. General Motors Corp. 639 So. 2d 275 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
See, and the cases cited therein.
Redford v. Boutte 638 So. 2d 702 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Stobart v. State, Through DOTD
STATE, DEPT. OF SOCIAL SERVICES v. Jones 638 So. 2d 699 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
Considering the applicable standard of review, and more recently reiterated in Stobart v. State, Through Department of Transportation and Development, we must admit that, in light of the testimony, the fact finder's conclusion was a reasonable onei.e., we find no "manifest error" or "clearly wrong" conclusion by the trial judge.
Pfiffner v. Correa 640 So. 2d 281 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
Acadiana Shrimpers v. Phoenix Fire & Marine 640 So. 2d 800 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
Rabalais v. Wal-Mart of Alexandria 640 So. 2d 785 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Stobart v. State, through DOTD
Handy v. Richard's Cajun Country Food 640 So. 2d 761 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Willis v. Dry Creek Nutrition Services 640 So. 2d 708 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
and was reiterated and refined in Stobart v. State, Through Department of Transportation and Development, (La.
Collette v. Ledet 640 So. 2d 757 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
Landry & Turner, Inc. v. LeBoyd 638 So. 2d 450 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Matherne v. Somme 638 So. 2d 437 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1994
Stobart v. State, Through DOTD, (La.
Breaux v. Larkin 637 So. 2d 1313 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Byrd v. State ex rel. Department of Public Safety & Corrections 637 So. 2d 114 La. 1994
Byrd v. STATE THROUGH DEPT. OF PUBLIC SAFETY 637 So. 2d 114 La. 1994
Cheramie v. Horst 637 So. 2d 720 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Rispone v. Louisiana State University 637 So. 2d 731 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Stobart v. State of Louisiana, Department of Transportation and Development
Brown v. Churchill & Thibaut, Inc. 637 So. 2d 764 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Stobart v. State, Department of Transportation and Development
Nettleton v. Audubon Ins. Co. 637 So. 2d 792 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
In Stobart v. State, Through Department of Transportation and Development, -883 (La.1993), the court held that, A court of appeal may not set aside a trial court's or a jury's findings of fact in the absence of `manifest error' or unless it is `clearly wrong.'
Vargas v. Daniell Battery Mfg. Co., Inc. 636 So. 2d 1194 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Stobart v. State Department of *1198 Transportation and Development
Smith v. LOUISIANA HEALTH & HUMAN RES. 637 So. 2d 1177 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
Stobart v. State, Through Dept. of Transportation and Development, -83 (La.1993).
Dixon v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc. 638 So. 2d 306 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
Boyd v. Allstate Insurance Co. 640 So. 2d 603 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Stobart v. State, through DOTD
Belaire v. L & L OIL CO. 636 So. 2d 1177 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
and Stobart v. State, Through Department of Transportation and Development
Reid v. State Through DOTD 637 So. 2d 618 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
Rollins v. Evangeline Parish Police Jury 640 So. 2d 432 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
-883 (La.1993), stated: la“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.’ This court has announced a two-part test for the reversal of a fact-finder’s determinations: 1) The appellate court must find from the recor
Welch v. STATE, DOTD. 640 So. 2d 596 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
LAW The Standard of Appellate Review The standard of review which we must apply in examining the factual conclusions of a and recently reiterated in Stobart *599 v. State, Through Department of Transportation and Development, 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."
Horton v. McCary 635 So. 2d 199 La. 1994
("[T]he issue to be resolved by a reviewing court is not whether the factfinder's conclusion was a reasonable one....
Prevost v. Eye Care and Surgery Center 635 So. 2d 765 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Stobart v. State, Department of Transportation and Development
Solet v. Luke 635 So. 2d 719 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
require us to defer to the findings of the trier of fact when there are two permissible views of the evidence, we may find manifest error where objective evidence so contradicts the witness’s story, or the story itself is so internally inconsistent or implausible on its face, that a reasonable fact finder w
Frost v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. 635 So. 2d 706 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Stobart v. State, Department of Transportation and Development, (La.
Obafunwa Family v. Appeals Bureau 635 So. 2d 714 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Stobart v. State, Department of Transportation and Development, -883 (La.
Thibodeaux v. Cajun Restaurant 635 So. 2d 522 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
1989), and recently reiterated in Stobart v. State, Through Department of Transportation and Development, (La.
Hulan v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 635 So. 2d 640 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Stobart v. State, through Department of Transportation and Development
Bennett v. City of Lafayette 635 So. 2d 515 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
1989), and recently reiterated in Stobart v. State, Through Department of Transportation and Development, (La.
Andrews v. Music Mountain Water Co. 637 So. 2d 571 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
Lee v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation & Development 635 So. 2d 559 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Brown v. Brown 635 So. 2d 255 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
Kidder v. Boudreaux 636 So. 2d 282 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
Breaux v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 635 So. 2d 667 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
Wal-Mart reminds us the standard of appellate review articulated in Rosell v. ESCO d/b/a Jolly Elevator Corp., and, again more recently, in Stobart v. State of Louisiana, DOTD, prevents this court from reversing the jury's finding of fact in the absence of "manifest error" or unless it is "clearly wrong," even if we would weigh the evidence differently.
Dismuke v. Quaynor 637 So. 2d 555 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
Stobart v. State of La., DOTD
Harig v. State, Bd. of Elementary & Secondary Educ. 635 So. 2d 485 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
Turner v. City of Monroe 634 So. 2d 981 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
Langlinais v. Figueroa 636 So. 2d 983 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
-883 (La.1993), 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.”
Sanders v. Tidewater, Inc. 635 So. 2d 365 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
Beoh v. Watkins 635 So. 2d 424 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
While we are fully sympathetic with the Sewerage and Water Board's attempt to obtain a trial de novo as a means of extricating this Court from the straightjacket we find ourselves in when reviewing issues of fact in general and quantum in particular as a to Stobart v. State, through DOTD, the solution proposed is just as extreme in the other direction.
Fisher v. River Oaks, Ltd. 635 So. 2d 1209 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1994
Blanchard v. Means Industries, Inc. 635 So. 2d 288 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1994
Russell ex rel. Wunstell v. Kossover 634 So. 2d 72 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
Saden v. Kirby 635 So. 2d 277 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994