Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Ambrose v. New Orleans Police Amb. Serv., 639 So. 2d 216.

487 citing documents.

Morris v. Haas 659 So. 2d 804 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
Ruttley v. Steiner 656 So. 2d 1095 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
7/5/94), : this Court held that the court of appeal should not upset the factual findings of a trial court absent manifest error or unless clearly wrong.
Galloway v. STATE, DEPT. OF TRANSP. & DEVE. 654 So. 2d 1345 La. 1995
Explained Welch v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc. 655 So. 2d 309 La. 1995
7/5/94) , we clarified that the court of appeal has a constitutional duty to review facts and to determine if the facts support the trial court judgment.
Sanders v. Wysocki 655 So. 2d 713 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
Stark v. National Tea Co. 655 So. 2d 769 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
7/5/94); ; Stobart v. State, through DOTD
Young v. Logue 660 So. 2d 32 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
EM Nominee Partnership Co. v. Arkla Energy Resources 656 So. 2d 55 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
in which the court clarified its views as follows: Notwithstanding the court's earlier guidance to reviewing courts in Stobart v. *59 State, through DOTD, (La.
Trondsen v. Irish-Italian Parade Committee 656 So. 2d 694 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
As stated in Ambrose v. New Orleans Police Department Ambulance Service, et al, 639 So.2d at 219 , gross negligence has been defined by Louisiana Courts as the "want of even slight care and diligence" and the "want of that diligence which even careless men are accustomed to exercise, or an extreme departure from ordinary care".
Plummer v. Marriott Corp. 654 So. 2d 843 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
State ex rel. Board of Ethics for Elected Officials as the Supervisory Committee on Campaign Finance Disclosure v. … 658 So. 2d 1276 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Fuge v. Uiterwyk 653 So. 2d 707 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
Simon v. Fasig-Tipton Co. 652 So. 2d 1351 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
Service, recently to announce: *1362 " it was not our purpose in that case to mandate that the trial court's factual determinations cannot ever, or hardly ever, be upset.
Stewart v. Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Co. 657 So. 2d 1327 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
Dupre v. Insurance Co. of North America 646 So. 2d 461 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
Smith v. State 647 So. 2d 653 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
Love v. Waterbed Sleep Shoppe, Inc. 652 So. 2d 650 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Am-brose v. Neiv Orleans Police Dep’t Ambulance Serv., 93-3099, p. 6 (La.1994); -221
Blackwell v. St. Romain Oil Co. 651 So. 2d 441 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Ferrell v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. 650 So. 2d 742 La. 1995
"it was not our purpose in [ Stobart ] to mandate that the trial court's factual determinations cannot ever, or hardly ever, be upset."
Gamino v. Lakeside Hosp. 652 So. 2d 36 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
7/5/94), , 220: this Court held that the court of appeal should not upset the factual findings of a trial court absent manifest error or unless clearly wrong.
Mistich v. Volkswagen of Germany, Inc. 650 So. 2d 385 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
Guillen v. TRANSIT MANAGE. OF SE LA 648 So. 2d 487 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
Todd v. Sauls 647 So. 2d 1366 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
7/5/94), , the Louisiana Supreme Court made the following statement in footnote 4: "This Court has at least twice addressed loss of a chance of survival.
Bookman v. Ciolino 648 So. 2d 982 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
the court stated thusly: | ^Notwithstanding the Court’s (La.
Romaguera v. Piccadilly Cafeterias, Inc. 648 So. 2d 1000 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1994
7/5/94), at 220-221 , our supreme court's most recent pronouncement on the standard of review of factual findings, the court stated: this Court held that the court of appeal should not upset the factual findings of a trial court absent manifest error or unless clearly wrong.
Hines v. Remington Arms Co., Inc. 648 So. 2d 331 La. 1994
7/5/94); ; Stobart v. State, through DOTD, (La.
Chelette v. Security Indus. Ins. 647 So. 2d 469 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
Justice Lemmon in a summarized appellate courts' review of facts versus review of the sufficiency of the evidence.
Girvan v. New Orleans Pub. Serv. Inc. 646 So. 2d 481 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
In Re Viviano 645 So. 2d 1301 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
Fitch v. Vintage Petroleum, Inc. 652 So. 2d 998 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
The Supreme Court recently clarified the Youn standard of appellate review in Ambrose v. New Orleans Police Department Ambulance Service, et al., No. 93-C-3099, stating: "It was not our purpose in that case to mandate that the trial court's factual determinations cannot ever, or hardly ever, be upset.
Chatelain v. Circle K Corp. 644 So. 2d 1079 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
NOTES [1] See, for the latest expression by the Supreme Court on appellate review of facts.
Adkins v. Burris Mill & Feed, Inc. 644 So. 2d 839 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
7/5/94), -221 , the supreme court stated it is a Louisiana appellate court's constitutional duty to determine not simply whether there is a reasonable factual basis for the finding of the trial court, but whether the verdict was "clearly wrong based on the evidence, or clearly without evidentiary support."
Delery v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America 643 So. 2d 807 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
McDonald v. Television Management, Inc. 643 So. 2d 802 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
7/5/94); , which sets forth the standard for appellate review of facts.
Quick v. Murphy Oil Co. 643 So. 2d 1291 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
Lewis v. State 642 So. 2d 260 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
Alonzo v. Silverman & Marks Plumbing Co. 640 So. 2d 876 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994