Cited by

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

4682 citing documents.

Kammerer v. Sewerage & Water Bd. 633 So. 2d 1357 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
Ferrell v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. 635 So. 2d 1152 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
Recently, shows that the scope of appellate review of findings of fact is extremely limited.
Bozeman v. Reed 633 So. 2d 944 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
In Stobart v. State, through Department of Transportation and Development, the Louisiana Supreme Court set forth a two-part test for the reversal of a factfinder's determinations: 1) The 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
Hutzler v. Cole 633 So. 2d 1319 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Stobart v. State, Department of Transportation and Development
Brumfield v. Guilmino 633 So. 2d 903 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Belle Pass Terminal, Inc. v. Jolin, Inc. 634 So. 2d 466 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Stobart v. State, Department of Transportation and Development
State ex rel. Ieyoub v. Phipps 634 So. 2d 51 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Poche v. State Through DOTD 633 So. 2d 913 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
the Supreme Court delineated the standard of review for factual findings.
LeBlanc v. Fidelity Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. 633 So. 2d 891 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Stobart v. State, Department of Transportation and Development
Benoit v. MacO Mfg. 633 So. 2d 1301 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Stobart v. State, Department of Transportation and Development, (La.
Clement v. Griffin 634 So. 2d 412 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
Stobart v. State, through DOTD
Andrus v. Andrus 634 So. 2d 1254 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
Stobart v. State, through DOTD
Smith v. Louisiana Dept. of Corrections 633 So. 2d 129 La. 1994
Gendusa v. City of New Orleans 635 So. 2d 1158 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
Treadaway v. Shoney's, Inc. 633 So. 2d 841 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
and Development, as the controlling law.
Fox v. Lam 632 So. 2d 877 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
Butler v. Zapata Haynie Corp. 633 So. 2d 1274 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
Just recently in Stobart v. State of Louisiana, Through DOTD, our supreme court instructed us that: (1) 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.'
Sons v. Delaune 634 So. 2d 1212 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Stobart v. State, Department of Transportation and Development
Brown v. Blue Grass Liquor Co. 632 So. 2d 904 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
Fontana v. Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc. 632 So. 2d 811 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
We are unable to conclude that the contradiction between plaintiffs deposition testimony and his trial testimony warrants a
Bessard v. State, DOTD 640 So. 2d 309 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
the supreme court found: 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.”
Roque v. Tate 631 So. 2d 1385 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1994
Caravalho v. Dual Drilling Services, Inc. 631 So. 2d 725 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
Gary v. HB Zachry Co., Inc. 631 So. 2d 671 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
Thomas v. Highlands Ins.
Sanders v. Wysocki 631 So. 2d 1330 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
New England's Policy covers malpractice by the named insurer, employees of the named insured, and attorneys of counsel, Part II, Section D, 1 and 2.
Owens v. Anderson 631 So. 2d 1313 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
Adams v. Greenhill Petroleum Corp. 631 So. 2d 1231 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1994
Hines v. Remington Arms Co., Inc. 630 So. 2d 809 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
Aetna Life and Cas. Co. v. Solloway 630 So. 2d 1353 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
Stobart v. State of Louisiana, through the Department of Transportation and Development
Chenniliaro v. Kaufman & Broad Home Sys. 636 So. 2d 246 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Freeman v. Poulan/Weed Eater 630 So. 2d 733 La. 1994
Vaughan Contractors, Inc. v. Cahn 629 So. 2d 1225 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
The Rosell language was further developed in Stobart v. State, through DOTD, which emphasized the principle that a factfinder's choice between two permissible views of the evidence "cannot be manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong."
Guilfore v. DH Holmes Co., Ltd. 631 So. 2d 491 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., Stobart v. *503 State, (La.
Davis v. Schwegmann Giant Super Markets 631 So. 2d 479 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
Patin v. Duplessis Pontiac-Buick-GMC 632 So. 2d 790 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
recently restated the two-part test for reversal of a fact finder's determinations: 1) The 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
Jones v. Western Preferred Cas. Co. 633 So. 2d 667 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
Stobart v. State, Department of Transportation and Development, (La.
Drago v. Retirement Center 632 So. 2d 781 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
Stobart v. State, Department of Transportation and Development
Morris v. Norco Const. Co. 632 So. 2d 332 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
Stobart v. State, Department of Transportation and Development
Thomas v. Tony's Seafood, Ltd. 633 So. 2d 675 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
Stobart v. State, Department of Transportation and Development, (La.
Bond v. Allemand 632 So. 2d 326 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
Stobart v. State, Department of Transportation and Development
Pino v. Gauthier 633 So. 2d 638 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
Stobart v. State, Department of Transportation and Development
Fowler v. St. Charles Hospital 630 So. 2d 293 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1993
Raney v. Walter O. Moss Regional Hosp. 629 So. 2d 485 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
Stobart v. State, through DOTD
Babineaux v. Tollie Freightways, Inc. 628 So. 2d 1327 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
Stobart v. State, Through Department of Transportation and Development, Jaffarzad v. Jones Truck Lines, Inc., (La.
Hutto v. Kneipp 627 So. 2d 802 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
Stobart v. State of Louisiana, Through DOTD
Doe v. McNulty 630 So. 2d 825 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
Antee v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. 627 So. 2d 798 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
Jefferson v. Costanza 628 So. 2d 1158 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
2d Cir. 1990), writ denied, State
Brinson v. Morgan City Housing Authority 629 So. 2d 1214 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
the Supreme Court reiterated the standard of review, stating, “where two permissible views of the evidence exist, the fact-finder’s choice between them cannot be manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong.” We find, after a careful reading of the record before us, that there is a reasonable factual basis fo
Perault v. Time Ins. Co. 633 So. 2d 263 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993