Cited by

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

4682 citing documents.

Ly v. State Through Dept. of Public Safety and Corrections 633 So. 2d 197 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
S & S Cash Register & Computer Co. v. Caldarera 627 So. 2d 255 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1993
in order to reverse a factfinder’s determination, 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 finding is clearly wrong (manifest
Johnson v. Union Pacific Railroad 626 So. 2d 61 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
Under the appellate standard of review for manifest error in factual determinations, and more recently in Stobart v. State, DOTD, as well as in Succession of Theriot v. Southern Pa.
Maroney v. Physicians & Surgeons Hospital 626 So. 2d 833 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
State v. WAS 629 So. 2d 1209 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
Trosclair v. Blanchard 625 So. 2d 737 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
Orgeron v. Lafourche Parish Hospital District No. 1 625 So. 2d 739 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
Stobart v. State, Department of Transportation and Development
State v. W.A.S. 629 So. 2d 1209 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
State v. Cuzick 640 So. 2d 265 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
Engolia v. Allain 625 So. 2d 723 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
Orgeron v. LAFOURCHE PARISH HOSP. DIST. 625 So. 2d 739 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
Stobart v. State, Department of Transportation and Development
Landry v. City of Abbeville 625 So. 2d 655 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
Hayes v. Kelly 625 So. 2d 628 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
and Stobart v. State of Louisiana, DOTD, that the trier of fact is afforded great discretion in credibility determinations of witnesses and the factual conclusions drawn from such determinations.
Hoyt v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 623 So. 2d 651 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
Stobart v. State of Louisiana, through the DOTD
Wainwright v. Leary 623 So. 2d 233 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
the Louisiana Supreme Court observed 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."
State in Interest of Taylor 637 So. 2d 512 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
Monroe Medical Clinic, Inc. v. Hospital Corp. of Am. 622 So. 2d 760 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
King v. OUR LADY OF THE LAKE MED. CENTER 623 So. 2d 139 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
Stobart v. State of Louisiana, Through Department of Transportation and Development
Hoyt v. Wood/Chuck Chipper Corp. 625 So. 2d 504 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
Where there are two permissible views of the evidence, the fact finder’s choice between them cannot be manifestly eiToneous or clearly wrong; therefore, we are powerless to disagree with the view of the evidence which the trier of fact chose to believe.
Patterson v. City of Baton Rouge 622 So. 2d 1386 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
Berthelot v. Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co. 623 So. 2d 14 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
Hunter v. Dept. of Transp. and Dev. 620 So. 2d 1149 La. 1993
Stobart v. State of Louisiana, Through Department of Transportation
Coley v. State, Through DOTD 621 So. 2d 41 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
Coffin v. Bd. of Sup'rs of La. Univ. 620 So. 2d 1354 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
the Louisiana Supreme Court observed 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 *1359 it is "clearly wrong."
Broussard v. Domingue 619 So. 2d 143 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
Stobart v. State of Louisiana, DOTD, Watson v. State Farm Fire and Cas.
Cramer v. Association Life Ins. Co., Inc. 619 So. 2d 821 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
Stobart v. State of Louisiana, Through Department of Transportation and Development, (La.
Reilly v. Dynamic Exploration, Inc. 619 So. 2d 120 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
Jenkins v. State, Department of Transportation & Development 619 So. 2d 1188 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
However, under what some legal authorities are calling a new standard of appellate review, the supreme *1205 has said that the appellate power to review facts is severely limited and any facts found by a trial court are beyond our pale of review, however incredible.
Jenkins v. STATE, DEPT. OF TRANSP. & DEV. 619 So. 2d 1188 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
However, under what some legal authorities are calling a new standard of appellate review, the supreme *1205 has said that the appellate power to review facts is severely limited and any facts found by a trial court are beyond our pale of review, however incredible.
Sudduth v. State, Dept. of Transp. & Development 619 So. 2d 618 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
*624 Elaborating recently on the manifest error doctrine, the Louisiana Supreme Court stated in Stobart v. State of Louisiana, Through Department of Transportation and Development, (La.
Thomas v. Highlands Ins. Co. 617 So. 2d 877 La. 1993
[1] Shirley Stobart v. State of Louisiana, Through Department of Transportation and Development
Touchard v. Williams 617 So. 2d 885 La. 1993
See Shirley Stobart v. State of Louisiana, Through Department of Transportation and Development, issued this day.