DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Evans v. Lungrin, 708 So. 2d 731.

639 citing documents.

  • Hains v. Hains 36 So. 3d 289 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    Evans v. Lungrin, 97-541 (La.2/6/98), .
  • Key v. Monroe City School Board 32 So. 3d 1144 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
    Inc., 2006-0983 (La.11/29/06), ; Evans v. Lungrin, 97-0541 *1149 (La.2/6/98)
  • Barrios v. Barrios 32 So. 3d 324 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
    Toni contends that the court’s presumption of “strict equality” was an “incorrect principle of |BIaw,” was prejudicial, and warrants de novo review of the record under Evans v. Lungrin, 97-0541 (La.2/6/98), .
  • FLORREICH v. Entergy Corp. 32 So. 3d 965 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2010
    ons for Judgment” on the Motion to Set Aside the Ex PaHe Order of Dismissal on Grounds of Abandonment, the trial court reasoned, “A review of the record clearly shows this case was abandoned.” |4It is well-settled that a Court of Appeal may not set aside a trial court’s or a jury’s finding of in the absence of “manifest error” or unless it is “clearly wrong.” Evans v. Lungrin, 97-0541(La.2/6/98); , 735
  • McCormic v. Rider 27 So. 3d 277 La. 2010
    See Evans v. Lungrin, 97-0541, 97-0577 (La.2/6/98), .
  • Schouest v. Burr 30 So. 3d 1017 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2010
    Influence of Statements on Jury’s Verdict It is well-settled 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.” Evans v. Lungrin, 97-0541(La.2/6/98), , 735 (La.
  • Dileo v. Dileo 30 So. 3d 1004 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    4 Cir. 4/2/08) , , citing Evans v. Lungrin, 97-0577 (La.2/6/98), .
  • Becker v. Jefferson Parish Department of Parks & Recreation 30 So. 3d 1007 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    Evans v. Lungrin, 97-0541 (La.2/6/98), .
  • Quinn v. State 25 So. 3d 250 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
  • Semmes v. Semmes 27 So. 3d 1024 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
    art. 131; Evans v. Lungrin, 97-0541 (La.2/6/98), ; Shivers v. Shivers, 44,596 (La.App.2d Cir.7/1/09), .
  • Walter Monroe Smith, Jr. v. Theresa Daniel Preston Smith La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
  • Penn v. Penn 28 So. 3d 304 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    Analysis First of all, Mrs. Penn argues that she is entitled to a de novo review of this record, citing Evans v. Lungrin, 97-0541 (La.2/6/98), , asserting that the trial court used the incorrect legal standard in deciding custody.
  • Estay v. Estay 24 So. 3d 1030 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
  • Thibodeaux v. NORTHERN TOOL & EQUIPMENT CATALOG COMPANY, INC. 24 So. 3d 1032 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
  • Rome v. Bruce 27 So. 3d 885 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    Evans v. Lungrin, 97-0541, 97-0577 (La.2/6/98), .
  • Snowton v. Snowton 22 So. 3d 1111 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    9:335(B)(1) provides that when parties are awarded joint custody, the court must designate a domiciliary parent “except when there is an implementation order to the contrary or for other good cause shown.” See Evans v. Lungrin, 97-0541, p. 11 (La.2/6/98), .
  • Anderson v. Houston 22 So. 3d 1029 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
    Evans v. Lungrin, 97-0541 (La.2/6/98), ; Poole v. Poole, 41,220 (La.App.
  • Lawrence v. Julian 17 So. 3d 520 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
  • Sharp v. St. Tammany Marine & Powersports 23 So. 3d 347 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    Evans v. Lungrin, 97-0541 and 97-0577 (La.2/6/98), ; see also Bertrand v. Dow Chemical Co., 05-1246 (La.App.
  • Robert v. Robert 17 So. 3d 1050 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
    art. 131; Evans v. Lungrin, 97-0541 (La.02/06/98), ; Slaughter v. Slaughter, 44,056 (La.App.2d Cir.12/30/08), .
  • Jones v. Coleman 18 So. 3d 153 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
    art. 131; Evans v. Lungrin, 97-0541 (La.2/6/98), .
  • Shivers v. Shivers 16 So. 3d 500 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
    art. 131; Evans v. Lungrin, 1997-0541 (La.2/6/98), .
  • Todd v. Delta Queen Steamboat Co. 15 So. 3d 107 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2009
    Evans v. Lungrin, 97-541, p. 7 (La.2/6/98), .
  • Shannon Menard v. Lafayette Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
    2/6/98), (citations omitted).
  • Menard v. Lafayette Insurance 13 So. 3d 794 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    Evans v. Lungrin, 97-541, 97-577, pp. 6-7 (La.2/6/98), (citations omitted).
  • Robertson v. Hessler 13 So. 3d 1214 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    Evans v. Lungrin, 97-0541, 97-0577, p. 7 (La.2/6/98), ; -04 (La.1986).
  • Brewer v. J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc. 9 So. 3d 932 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    Evans v. Lungrin, 97-0541, 97-0577, p. 6-7 (La.2/6/98)
  • Lirette v. Wickramasekera 13 So. 3d 744 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    Conversely, “where one or more trial court legal errors interdict the fact-finding process, the manifest error standard is no longer applicable, and, if the record is otherwise complete, the appellate court should make its own independent de novo review of the record and determine a preponderance of the evidence.” Evans v. Lungrin, 1997-0541, p. 6-7 (La.2/6/98), .
  • Dozier v. Rhodus 17 So. 3d 402 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    Evans v. Lungrin, 97-0541, 97-0577 (La.2/6/98), .
  • Davis v. Green 5 So. 3d 291 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
    Evans v. Lungrin, 97-541 (La.2/6/98), .
  • Schmidt v. Schmidt 6 So. 3d 197 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    Evans v. Lungrin, 97-0541 (La.2/6/98), .
  • Ramona Andrews Denton v. Bobby Gene Denton, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
  • Denton v. Denton 999 So. 2d 1261 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
  • Palazzolo v. Mire 10 So. 3d 748 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    Evans v. Lungrin, 97-0541, 97-0577, pp. 7-8 (La.2/6/98), -36 (citing Kenneth Rigby, 1993 Custody and Child Support Legislation, 55 La.
  • Perry v. Monistere 4 So. 3d 850 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
    Evans v. Lungrin, 97-0541, 97-0577 (La.2/6/98), ; La.
  • Picou v. Picou 1 So. 3d 761 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
    Evans v. Lungrin, 97-0541, 97-0577, p. 13 (La.2/6/98), ; Ordoyne v. Ordoyne, 07-235, p. 5 (La.App.
  • Russell v. Regency Hosp. of Covington, LLC 998 So. 2d 301 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
    Evans v. Lungrin, 97-0541, pp. 6-7 (La.2/6/98), .
  • Beene v. Beene 997 So. 2d 169 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
    Evans v. Lungrin, 97-0541 (La.02/06/98), .
  • Henry v. Henry 995 So. 2d 643 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
    Evans v. Lungrin, 97-0541, 97-0577 p. 12 (La.2/6/98), ; La.
  • Edwards v. Pierre 994 So. 2d 648 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
    Evans v. Lungrin, 97-0541, p. 7 (La.2/6/98), ; Tremblay v. Allstate Ins.
  • Kees v. Kees 992 So. 2d 568 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
    art. 131; Evans v. Lungrin, [97-0541 (La.2/6/98), ] Id., Rutledge v. Rutledge, 41,792 (La.App.2d Cir.12/13/06), .
  • Todd Baudin v. Sharmon Baudin Prevost La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    2/6/98), (citations omitted).
  • Baudin v. Prevost 986 So. 2d 915 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    2/6/98), (citations omitted).
  • Johnson v. Spurlock 986 So. 2d 724 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
    [5] "It is well-settled 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.'" Evans v. Lungrin, 97-0541 (La.2/6/98), ( ).
  • City of New Orleans v. Badine Land Ltd. 985 So. 2d 832 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
    Evans v. Lungrin, 97-0541, 97-0577, p. 7 (La.2/6/98), ; -04 (La.1986).
  • Caldwell Lands, Inc. v. Cedyco Corp. 980 So. 2d 827 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    Evans v. Lungrin, 97-541, 97-577 (La.2/6/98), .
  • Angela Ducote Randolph v. Jonathan Randolph La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
  • Randolph v. Randolph 982 So. 2d 281 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    See Evans v. Lungrin, 97-541, 97-577 (La.2/6/98), .
  • Natalie Jeanne Edmonds Lord v. Brett Kenneth Lord La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    2/6/98), the supreme court explained, “[a] legal error occurs when a trial court applies incorrect principles of law and such errors are prejudicial.
  • Lord v. Lord 981 So. 2d 210 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    In Evans v. Lungrin, 97-541 (La.2/6/98), , the supreme court explained, "[a] legal error occurs when a trial court applies incorrect principles of law and such errors are prejudicial.