Cited by

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

487 citing documents.

Davis v. Puryear 673 So. 2d 1298 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
7-5-94), -21 ; Stobart v. State, DOTD, Rosell *1303 v. ESCO, writ denied
Filasek v. Doctor's Hospital of Jefferson 673 So. 2d 1263 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
7/15/94), 221 ; Goodliffe v. Parish Anesthesia Associates, 95-357 (La.
Levron v. State 673 So. 2d 279 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
Boutte v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc. 674 So. 2d 299 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
7/5/94), , would demand great deference on appeal.
Angelo & Son, Inc. v. RAPIDS BANK & TRUST CO. 671 So. 2d 1283 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
7/5/94), , reiterated a court of appeal's duty in reviewing factual determinations of a trial court as follows: Although deference to the factfinder should be accorded, the court of appeal, and the Louisiana Supreme Court, nonetheless have a constitutional duty to review facts.
Guillory v. Insurance Co. of North America 671 So. 2d 1112 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
Const. art V, § 10(B) and (C); Ambrose v. New Orleans Police Dept. Ambulance Serv., 93-3099, 93-3110, 93-3112 (La.7/5/94); .
Syrie v. Schilhab 679 So. 2d 143 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
Service, and 221 cautioned: " (La.
Olivier v. Best Workover, Inc. 669 So. 2d 476 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1996
Gooden v. Canal Place Ltd. Partnership 671 So. 2d 950 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
7/5/94) , reh’ing denied, (Sept.
Callihan v. Town of Vinton 668 So. 2d 735 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
Rowe v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 670 So. 2d 718 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
7/5/94), -222 , citing La.
STATE, DEPT. OF TRANSP. & DEV. v. Schwegmann Westside Expressway, Inc. 669 So. 2d 1172 La. 1996
Ventress v. Union Pacific RR Co. 666 So. 2d 1210 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
Parker v. DePriest 666 So. 2d 433 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Ambrose v. New Orleans Police Dep't Ambulance Serv., 93-3099, 93-3110, 93-3112 (La.7/5/94), .
New Orleans Riverwalk Assoc. v. RP GUASTELLA, INC. 664 So. 2d 151 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
Manuel v. Shell Oil Co. 664 So. 2d 470 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
Explained Domangue v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 665 So. 2d 779 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 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.
Oden v. Baroid Drilling Fluids, Inc. 665 So. 2d 1300 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
7/5/94), , reh’ing denied (Sept.
Haworth v. L'Hoste 664 So. 2d 1335 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
Regional Transit Authority v. Lemoine 664 So. 2d 1303 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
Martin v. DEPT. OF TRANSP. & DEVELOPMENT 665 So. 2d 457 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
and other cases saying that where two permissible views of the testimony and evidence exist, the factfinder's choice cannot be manifestly erroneous *460 and/or subject to appellate amendment.
Coutee v. STATE FARM MUT. AUTO. INS. CO. 664 So. 2d 542 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
Gill v. Tanner Heavy Equipment 664 So. 2d 611 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Bourque v. Koury 664 So. 2d 553 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
Serv., 93-3099, 93-3110, 93-3112 (La.7/5/94); .
Graham v. Willis-Knighton Medical Center 662 So. 2d 161 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
Martin v. Martin 663 So. 2d 519 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
Hollis v. McDermott, Inc. 663 So. 2d 837 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
7/5/94), , and Stobart v. State, through Department of Transportation and Developme
Goodliffe v. Parish Anesthesia Associates 663 So. 2d 769 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
National Tea Co. v. Plymouth Rubber Co. 663 So. 2d 801 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.
Dastugue v. Fernan 662 So. 2d 538 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
Brown on Behalf of Brown v. Gen. Motors Corp. 662 So. 2d 531 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
Dunaway v. Delchamps, Inc. 665 So. 2d 407 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Green v. City of Thibodaux 671 So. 2d 399 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
7/5/94); , the Louisiana Supreme Court addressed the proper standard of appellate review for factual findings.
Olivier v. Allstate Ins. Co. 663 So. 2d 207 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
Encalade v. Schwegmann Giant Supermarkets, Inc. 662 So. 2d 140 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
7/5/94), , the Court explained that although deference to the factfinder should be accorded, the reviewing courts still have a constitutional duty to review facts and determine “whether the trial court verdict | swas clearly wrong based on the evidence, or clearly without evidentiary support.” Id.
Harris v. Regional Transit Authority 662 So. 2d 134 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Explained Blair v. Imperial Inn, Inc. 662 So. 2d 150 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
7/5/94); , we clarified that the court of appeal has a constitution *154 al duty to review facts and to determine if the facts support the trial court judgment.
Guillory v. State Farm Ins. Co. 662 So. 2d 104 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
7/5/94), , this Court cannot say that the jury was manifestly erroneous in finding that State Farm discriminated against Mr. Guillory in the manner in which it administered the loss control program.
Pattan v. Fields 669 So. 2d 1233 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
"it was not our purpose in [ Stobart ] to mandate that the trial court's factual determinations *1240 cannot ever, or hardly ever, be upset."
Ayres v. Beauregard Elec. Co-Op., Inc. 663 So. 2d 127 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
Ambrose v. New Orleans Police Dep't Ambulance Serv., 93-3099, 93-3110, 93-3112 (La.7/5/94); .
Donaldson v. Sanders 661 So. 2d 1010 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
Creekmore v. Elco Maintenance 659 So. 2d 815 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Jefferson v. K-Mart Corp. 663 So. 2d 36 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Domangue v. Mr. Gatti's, Inc. 657 So. 2d 689 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Doucet v. Champagne 657 So. 2d 92 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
7/5/94); , the Louisiana Supreme Court addressed the proper standard of appellate review for factual findings.
In Interest of Jln 658 So. 2d 272 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
7/5/94), , and Rosenblath's v. Baker Industries, 25,685 (La.App.2d Cir. 3/30/94), , writ denied.
Barre v. Nadell 657 So. 2d 514 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
"it was not our purpose in [ Stobart ] to mandate that the trial court's factual determinations cannot ever, or hardly ever, be upset."
Dauzat v. Rapides Parish Police Jury 657 So. 2d 484 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
“it was not our purpose in [Stobart ] to mandate that the trial court’s factual determinations cannot ever, or hardly ever, be upset.” Consequently, the Court of Appeal in the present case was mistaken in concluding that Stobart had further constricted the scope of review so as to make it “extremely li
Williams v. Shell Oil Co. 657 So. 2d 382 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
7/5/94); reiterated this standard of appellate review of facts.
Tartar v. Hymes 656 So. 2d 756 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.