DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Shephard on Behalf of Shephard v. Scheeler, 701 So. 2d 1308.

66 citing documents.

  • James Carnez Burns v. Loomis Armored US, LLC, Lavette Dooley Gay, Arch Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2025
    10/21/97), Ferrell v. Fireman’s Fund Ins.
  • Thomas Allen and Elva Allen v. State of Louisiana, Department of Wildlife & Fisheries and Devin Bryant La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2025
    10/21/97), a sixteen-year-old boy lost control of his vehicle and 10 slammed into a parish dump truck partially parked on the shoulder.
  • Tarlton Bernard and Addison Provost v. Bfi Waste Services, LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2021
    5/2/03), As explained by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Shephard on Behalf of Shephard v. Scheeler, 96-1690, p. 18 (La.10/21/97); : A presumption of negligence arises when a driver leaves his own lane of traffic and strikes another vehicle.
  • Curtis Tezeno v. Daniel Robert Young La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
  • Mary L. Sepulvado v. Farm Bureau Insurance Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
    10/21/97), (first alteration in original), this court agreed that: ‘[t]he primary safety purpose of the paved shoulder of the highway is to provide an area for motorists who require a momentary stop, and to protect a motorist who inadvertently leaves the roadway.
  • Daniel Norman v. Michael A. Shelton Enterprise, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
    10/21/97), that “[t]he primary safety purpose of the paved shoulder of the highway is to provide an area for motorists who require a momentary stop, and to protect a motorist who inadvertently leaves the roadway.” While the facts in Shephard are somewhat distinct from those before us in that the Parish was assessed wi
  • Daniel Norman v. Michael A. Shelton Enterprise, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
  • Brown v. Affirmative Cas. Ins. Co. 263 So. 3d 636 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2019
    10/21/97), ; Chaney v. Vaughn , 51,795 (La.
  • Chaney v. Vaughn 245 So. 3d 1208 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2018
    10/21/97), ; and Williams v. Jackson Parish Hosp.
  • Royal ex rel. Mott v. Blanch 222 So. 3d 823 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
    10/21/97), -17 , where the district judge who presided over the trial and observed demeanor evidence died prior to rendering judgment.
  • Lafitte-Nesom v. Christus Schumpert Highland 188 So. 3d 1100 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
    Shephard v. Scheeler, 96-1690 (La.10/21/97), ; Haile v. City of Monroe, 31,315 (La.App.
  • Tingle v. Page Boiler, Inc. 186 So. 3d 220 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
    Shephard v. Scheeler, 96-1690 (La.10/21/97), ; Haile v. City of Monroe, 31,315 (La.App.
  • Terry Lee Johnson, Sr. v. Lynn Edward Foret, M.D. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
    10/21/97), our supreme court held that even when a case is submitted to the trial judge for decision on record evidence only with no live testimony, we are nonetheless obligated to apply the manifest error standard when reviewing the case on appeal.
  • Johnson v. Foret 146 So. 3d 614 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    DISCUSSION Standard of Review In Virgil v. American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Co., and Shephard v. Scheeler, 96-1690 (La.10/21/97), , our supreme court held that even when a case is submitted to the trial judge for decision on record evidence only with no live testimony, we are nonetheless obligated to apply the manifest error standard when reviewing the case on appeal.
  • Rozina Amlani v. Rocky James McGee La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
  • Distinguished Amlani v. McGee 135 So. 3d 1246 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    4 Cir. 2/2/00) , ; and Shephard v. Scheeler, 96-1690 (La.10/21/97), .
  • Auta B. Highsmith, Et Ux v. Lynn Edward Foret, M.D. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    10/21/97), -17 (footnotes omitted) when it opined: The manifest error standard of review is well established and recognized in our jurisprudence.
  • Highsmith v. Foret 124 So. 3d 571 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    rel Shephard v. Scheeler, 96-1690, 96-1720, pp. 14-15 (La.10/21/97), -17 (footnotes omitted) when it opined: The manifest error standard of review is well established and recognized in our jurisprudence.
  • Dwight Johnson v. Jonathan Smith La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
  • Johnson v. Smith 86 So. 3d 874 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    See Shephard on Behalf of Shepard v. Scheeler, 96-1690 (La.10/21/97), .
  • Romano v. Altentaler 77 So. 3d 282 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    See Shephard on Behalf of Shephard v. Scheeler, 96-1690 (La.10/21/97), ; American Medical Enterprises, Inc. v. Audubon Ins.
  • Hopkins v. Nola 58 So. 3d 1075 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
    10/21/97), ; Harris v. Dunn, 45,619 (La.App.2d Cir.9/22/10), .
  • Harris v. Dunn 48 So. 3d 367 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
    Shephard on Behalf of Shephard v. Scheeler, 96-1690 (La.10/21/97), ; Hooper v. State Farm Mut.
  • Gatlin v. KLEINHEITZ 34 So. 3d 872 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    Shephard v. Scheeler, 96-1690, 96-1720 (La.10/21/97), .
  • Roosevelt Sampson v. Fred J. Rabalais La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
    10/21/97), (emphasis added).
  • Tompkins v. Savoie 10 So. 3d 294 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    (per curiam), reaffirmed in Shephard on Behalf of Shepard v. Scheeler, 96-1690, pp. 14-15 (La.10/21/97), -17 .
  • Gallant Investments, Ltd. v. Illinois Central Railroad 7 So. 3d 12 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    Shephard v. Scheeler, 96-1690, pp. 12-15 (La.10/21/97), -16 ; Virgil v. American Guar.
  • Stone v. Bullard 2 So. 3d 1241 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
    Shephard on Behalf of Shephard v. Scheeler, 96-1690 (La.10/21/97), ; Richardson, supra.
  • Jenkins v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation & Development 993 So. 2d 749 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
    In Shephard v. Scheeler, 96-1690, p. 16 (La.10/21/97), , the supreme court observed that “[a] small amount of puddling” on a roadway “would be impossible to prevent, and for the most part these puddles pose no unreasonable danger to the traveling public.” However, it also recognized that “excess or standing water in the roadway is unreasonably dangerous.” Shephard
  • Jenkins v. STATE EX REL. DOTD 993 So. 2d 749 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
    In Shephard v. Scheeler, 96-1690, p. 16 (La.10/21/97), , the supreme court observed that "[a] small amount of puddling" on a roadway "would be impossible to prevent, and for the most part these puddles pose no unreasonable danger to the traveling public."
  • Alexander v. Brookshire Grocery Co. 975 So. 2d 100 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
    See also, Shephard on behalf of Shephard v. Scheeler, 96-1690 (La.10/21/97), ; McGill v. Cochran-Sysco Foods, 35,898 (La.App.2d Cir.5/8/02), , writ denied, 02-1609 (La.9/30/02), ; Haile v. City of Monroe, 31,315 (La.App.2d Cir.12/14/98), ; Darbonne v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 00-551 (La.App.
  • Lindsay v. GREATER NEW ORLEANS EXPRESSAWAY COMMISSION 966 So. 2d 1247 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
  • Royals v. Town of Richwood 968 So. 2d 833 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
    Shephard v. Scheeler, 96-1690 (La.10/21/97), ; Feild v. General Motors Corp., 36,339 (La.App.
  • Harbor v. CHRISTUS ST. FRANCES CABRINI HOS. 943 So. 2d 545 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    Discussion Standard of Review In Shepard v. Scheeler, 96-1690 (La.10/21/97), , the supreme court held that even when the evidence consists solely of written reports, records, and depositions, the appellate court cannot overrule the trial court's finding of fact absent manifest error.
  • Linda Harbor v. Christus St. Frances Cabrini Hospital La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    10/21/97), the supreme court held that even when the evidence consists solely of written reports, records, and depositions, the appellate court cannot overrule the trial court’s finding of fact absent manifest error.
  • Reynolds Industrial Contractors v. Fox 935 So. 2d 783 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
    See also, Shephard on behalf of Shephard v. Scheeler, 96-1690 (La.10/21/97), ; McGill v. Cochran-Sysco Foods, 35,898 (La.App.
  • Mark Reed v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
  • Reed v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 929 So. 2d 871 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    Shepard on Behalf of Shephard v. Scheeler, 96-1690 (La.10/21/97), .
  • LeBlanc v. Baxter 905 So. 2d 415 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
    Shephard on Behalf of Shepard v. Scheeler, 96-1690, p. 15 (La.10/29/97), , reaffirming Virgil v. American Guar.
  • Provost v. USA Truck, Inc. 901 So. 2d 1220 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
    Shephard on Behalf of 10Shephard v. Scheeler, 96-1690 (La.10/21/97), .
  • Marilyn Maricle v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
  • Maricle v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. 898 So. 2d 565 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    Shephard v. Scheeler, 96-1690, 96-1720 (La.10/21/97), .
  • Richardson v. Aldridge 854 So. 2d 923 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
    3d Cir.10/7/98), ; Shephard on Behalf of Shepard v. Scheeler, 96-1690 (La.10/21/97), .
  • WEST EX REL. WEST v. Watson 843 So. 2d 565 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
    art. 410(A)(2); Shephard v. Scheeler, et al., 96-1690 (La.10/21/97), .
  • West ex rel. West v. Watson 843 So. 2d 565 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
    art. 410(A)(2); Shephard v. Scheeler, et al., 96-1690 (La.10/21/97), .
  • Feild v. General Motors Corp. 828 So. 2d 150 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
    Shephard v. Scheeler, 96-1690 (La.10/21/97), ; Virgil v. American Guar.
  • McGill v. Cochran-Sysco Foods 818 So. 2d 301 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
    Shephard on Behalf of Shephard v. Scheeler, 96-1690 (La.10/21/97), ; Virgil v. American Guar.
  • Duncan v. Safeway Ins. Co. of Louisiana 799 So. 2d 1161 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
    See Shephard on Behalf of Shepard v. Scheeler, 96-1690 (La.10/21/97), ; Ferrell v. Fireman's Fund Ins.
  • Wilson v. WINN PARISH MED. CENTER 793 So. 2d 268 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
    Shephard on Behalf of Shephard v. Scheeler, 96-1690 (La.10/21/97), .
  • Alford v. Al Copeland Investments, Inc. 794 So. 2d 52 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
    See Shepard on behalf of Shepard v. Scheeler, 96-1690 (La.10/21/97), ; and Williams v. Jackson Parish Hospital, 31,492 (La.App.2d Cir.1/13/99), , writ denied, 99-0458 (La.4/1/99), .