Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Zatarain v. WDSU-Television, Inc., 673 So. 2d 1181.

42 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Robert H. Miller, III A/K/A Robert Miller, III La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2023
State of Louisiana v. Desmond Dangelo Dugas La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
Jerry R. Bagwell v. Union Carbide Corporation La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2020
App. 4 Cir. 4/24/96), ).
Marty Melerine and Oyster Fisheries, Inc. v. Tom's Marine & Salvage, LLC, Tom's Welding, Inc., Triple T Marine, … La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2020
App. 4 Cir. 4/24/96), 1183.
Fie, LLC v. New Jax Condo Ass'n, Inc. 241 So. 3d 372 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
App. 4 Cir. 4/24/96), , 1183.
In Re: Eleanor Pierce (Marshall) Stevens Living Trust and Eleanor Pierce Stevens Revocable Gift Trust La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
In re Eleanor Pierce (Marshall) Stevens Living Trust 159 So. 3d 1101 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
Pollard v. Schiff 161 So. 3d 48 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
State v. Molineux 76 So. 3d 617 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
Dyna Mitte v. Progressive Security Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
State v. Davis 30 So. 3d 201 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
4 Cir. 4/24/96), (“This court generally applies the law of the case’ doctrine when reviewing an issue decided on supervisory writs as part of the appeal of the case following a trial on the merits, except when it finds either that the previous decision is based on palpable error or that manifest injustice would result.”).
Robertson v. Hessler 13 So. 3d 1214 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
4 Cir. 4/24/96), , stating: This court generally applies the “law of the case” doctrine when reviewing an issue decided on supervisory writs as part of the appeal of the case following a trial on the merits, except when it finds either that the previous decision is based on palpable error or that manifest injustice would result.
Lewis v. ODECO, INC. 12 So. 3d 363 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
4 Cir. 4/24/96), (“This court generally applies the ‘law of the case’ doctrine when reviewing an issue decided on supervisory writs as part of the appeal of the case following a trial on the merits, except when it finds either that the previous decision is based on palpable error or that manifest injustice would result.”).
Schmidt v. Schmidt 6 So. 3d 197 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Delta Chemical Corp. v. Lynch 979 So. 2d 579 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
4 Cir. 4/24/96), ("This court generally applies the `law of the case' doctrine when reviewing an issue decided on supervisory writs as part of the appeal of the case following a trial on the merits, except when it finds either that the previous decision is based on palpable error or that manifest injustice would result.").
Pyles v. Weaver 958 So. 2d 753 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2007
Andry v. Murphy Oil, USA, Inc. 935 So. 2d 239 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
4 Cir. 4/24/96), , 1186: This court generally applies the "law of the case" doctrine when reviewing an issue decided on supervisory writs as part of the appeal of the case following a trial on the merits, except when it finds either that the previous decision is based on palpable error or that manifest injustice would result.
Raiford v. U.S. Industries/Ames Lawn & Garden Tools 929 So. 2d 288 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
Raiford v. US INDUSTRIES/AMES LAWN 929 So. 2d 288 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
In re New Orleans Train Car Leakage Fire Litigation 903 So. 2d 9 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
Adams v. CSX Railroads 902 So. 2d 413 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
Shirley Gauthier v. Newty Paul Gauthier La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
4 Cir. 4/24/96), Martin v. Heritage Manor South Nursing Home, 00-1023 (La.
Gauthier v. Gauthier 886 So. 2d 681 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
4 Cir. 4/24/96), ; Martin v. Heritage Manor South Nursing Home, 00-1023 (La.4/3/01), .
West v. National RR Passenger Corp. 879 So. 2d 327 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
Garrison v. St. Charles General Hospital 845 So. 2d 1047 La. 2003
Davis v. Witt 831 So. 2d 1075 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
Alex v. Rayne Concrete Service 813 So. 2d 1189 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
Decoux v. Decoux 815 So. 2d 1002 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
4th Cir.04/24/96), Hogan v. State Farm Auto Ins.
Rivet v. STATE, DOTD 800 So. 2d 777 La. 2001
Estes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 800 So. 2d 1018 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
Marrogi v. Gerber 787 So. 2d 1098 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
Raburn v. Williams 786 So. 2d 955 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
4th Cir.04/24/96), ; Hogan v. State Farm Auto Ins.
Davis v. Coregis Ins. Co. 789 So. 2d 7 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
Davis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 774 So. 2d 84 La. 2000
4 Cir. 4/24/96) , , the fourth circuit court of appeal held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for new trial on the basis that the evidence was contrary to the law and evidence.
Tsatsoulis v. City of New Orleans 769 So. 2d 137 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
4 Cir. 4/24/96) , (citation omitted).
Magee v. Pittman 761 So. 2d 731 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
Barre v. Bonds 763 So. 2d 60 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
Waters v. Allstate Insurance Co. 731 So. 2d 1001 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
STATE, DOTD v. August Christina & Bros., Inc. 716 So. 2d 372 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
McRay v. Booker T. Washington Nursing Home 711 So. 2d 772 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
4th Cir. 4/24/96), [Letter of Determination from EEOC concluding that television station likely discriminated against news anchor was not admissible under Art. 803(8)(b)(iv) in the anchor's employment discrimination suit against station].
Dekeyser v. Automotive Cas. Ins. Co. 706 So. 2d 676 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
Scott v. Division of Housing & Neighborhood Development 703 So. 2d 218 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997