DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

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.

  • Lester v. Exxon Mobil Corp. 102 So. 3d 148 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    Evans v. Lungrin, 97-541, p. 2 (La.2/6/98), .
  • Dionysia F. Huval Prejean v. Ronald Joseph Prejean, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
    is governed by the following rules: A party seeking to modify a custody decree which was a stipulated judgment must prove ―(1) that there has been a material change of circumstances since the original custody decree was entered, and (2) that the proposed modification is in the best interest of the child.‖ Evans v. Lungrin, 97-541, 97-577, p. 13 (La.2/6/98)
  • Leard v. Schenker 87 So. 3d 270 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2012
    Chambers v. Village of Moreauville, 2011-898, p. 2 (La.1/24/12), , citing Evans v. Lungrin, 97-0541 (La.2/6/98), .
  • Coleman v. Coleman 87 So. 3d 246 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
    art. 131; Evans v. Lungrin, 97-0541 (La.2/6/98), .
  • Dunklin v. Dunklin 86 So. 3d 741 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
    art. 131; Evans v. Lungrin, 97-0541 (La.2/6/98), ; Semmes v. Semmes, 45,006 (La.App.2d Cir.12/16/09), ; Shivers v. Shivers, 44,596 (La.App.2d Cir.7/1/09), .
  • Skipper v. Skipper 86 So. 3d 707 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
    art. 131; Evans v. Lungrin, 97-0541 (La.2/6/98), ; Semmes v. Semmes, 45,006 (La.App.2d Cir. 12/16/09), ; Shivers v. Shivers, 44,596 (La.App.2d Cir.7/1/09), .
  • Chambers v. Village of Moreauville 85 So. 3d 593 La. 2012
    LAW AND DISCUSSION Generally, a court of appeal may not set aside a trial court’s or jury’s finding of fact in absence of “manifest error” or unless it is “clearly wrong.” Evans v. Lungrin, 97-0541, (La.2/6/98), ().
  • Beaudion v. Beaudion 83 So. 3d 355 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    Evans v. Lungrin, 97-0541 (La.2/6/98), .
  • Hertz Corp. v. R & R Properties, L.L.C. 83 So. 3d 205 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    LAW & ANALYSIS Our standard of review in this matter was set forth in Evans v. Lungrin, 97-0541 (La.2/6/98), as follows: 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.” However, where one or more trial court legal errors interdict the fact-finding process, the manifest error standard is no longer applic
  • In re Helm 84 So. 3d 607 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    4 Cir. 5/11/11), , writ denied, 2011-1210 (La.9/23/11), (citing Evans v. Lungrin, 970541, 970577 (La.2/6/98), ).
  • Rodriguez v. Wyatt 102 So. 3d 109 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    Standard of Review It is well-settled that a court of appeal may not set aside a trial court’s or *114 a jury’s finding of fact in the absence of “manifest error” or unless it is “clearly wrong.” Evans v. Lungrin, 97-0541, 97-0577, (La.2/6/98), (citation omitted).
  • Olivier v. Olivier 81 So. 3d 22 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    1st Cir.l 1/4/05), ; see Evans v. Lungrin, 97-0541, 97-0577 (La.2/6/98), .
  • Donald Ray Brown v. Town of Ferriday La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
  • Brown v. Town of Ferriday 76 So. 3d 155 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    Evans v. Lungrin, 97-541, 97-577 (La.2/6/98), .
  • In re the Marriage of Blanch 76 So. 3d 557 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    Evans v. Lungrin, 97-0541 (La.2/6/98), (citing Ferrell v. Fireman’s Fund Ins.
  • McFall v. Armstrong 75 So. 3d 30 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2011
  • Guest House of Slidell v. Hills 76 So. 3d 497 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    Evans v. Lungrin, 97-0541, 97-0577, p. 6 (La.2/6/98), .
  • Dejoie v. Guidry 71 So. 3d 1111 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    The Louisiana Supreme Court has instructed intermediate appellate courts to apply the manifest error standard of review unless “one or more trial court legal errors interdict the fact-finding process.” Evans v. Lungrin, 97-0541, 97-0577, p. 6 (La.2/6/98), .
  • Gray v. Gray 65 So. 3d 1247 La. 2011
    dy is so deleterious to the child as to justify a modification of the custody de *1259 cree, or of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the harm likely to be caused by a change of environment is substantially outweighed by its advantages to the child.” Bergeron , 492 So.2d at |2q1200; see also AEB v. JBE, 99-2668, p. 7, 752 So.2d at 761 ; Evans v. Lungrin, 97-0541, pp. 12-13 (La.2/6/98), .
  • Nicole Lormand v. David A. Lormand La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    Evans v. Lungrin, 97-0541 (La.2/6/98)
  • Faulkner v. Better Services, Inc. 67 So. 3d 646 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    Evans v. Lungrin, 97-0541, p. 6 (La.2/6/98), (citation omitted).
  • Cueva v. Gaddis 66 So. 3d 1134 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    Evans v. Lungrin, 97-0541 (La.2/6/98), .
  • Gerhardt v. Gerhardt 70 So. 3d 863 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
    art. 131; Evans v. Lungrin, 97-0541 (La.02/06/98), ; Semmes v. Semmes, 45,006 (La.App.2d Cir.12/16/09), .
  • D.M.B.T. v. M.A.T. 83 So. 3d 3 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
    art. 131; Evans v. Lungrin, 97-0541 (La.2/6/98), .
  • Fornerette v. Ward 66 So. 3d 516 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2011
    ‘‘However, where one or more trial court legal errors interdict the fact-finding process, the manifest error standard is no longer applicable.” Evans v. Lungrin, 97-0541, 97-0577 (La.2/6/98), .
  • Gathen v. Gathen 66 So. 3d 1 La. 2011
    See Evans v. Lungrin, 97-541 (La.2/6/98), (where one or |13more legal errors interdict the fact-finding process, if the record is complete the court of appeal must conduct a de novo review of the record).
  • Jones v. Jones 63 So. 3d 1074 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
    Evans v. Lungrin, 97-0541 (La.2/6/98), ; Oglesby v. Oglesby, 25,974 (La.App.2d Cir.8/17/94), .
  • Ttv, LLC v. David B. Simmons La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
  • Trent Harvey v. Kelly (Singleton) Harvey La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    2/6/98), (citing Hensgens v. Hensgens, 94-1200 (La.App.
  • TTV, L.L.C. v. Simmons 58 So. 3d 684 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    Evans v. Lungrin, 97-541, 97-577 (La.2/6/98), .
  • Molony v. Harris 60 So. 3d 70 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    Evans v. Lungrin, 97-0541, 97-0577, p. 12 (La.2/6/98), ; see La.
  • Boyd v. Boyd 57 So. 3d 1169 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    Evans v. Lungrin, 97-0541 (La.2/6/98), .
  • Petrie v. Michetti 59 So. 3d 430 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    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.” Evan s v. Lungrin, 97-0541 (La.2/6/98), ().
  • Givens v. Givens 53 So. 3d 720 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    Evans v. Lungrin, 97-0541, 97-0577, p. 12 (La.2/6/98), .
  • Sebren v. Sebren 56 So. 3d 1032 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
    art. 131; Evans v. Lungrin, 1997-0541 (La.02/06/98), ; Semmes v. Semmes, 45,006 (La.App.2d Cir.12/16/09), .
  • Chauvin v. Chauvin 49 So. 3d 565 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    Evans v. Lungrin, 97-0541, p. 6 (La.2/6/98), .
  • Griffith v. Latiolais 48 So. 3d 1058 La. 2010
    Evans v. Lungrin, 97-541 (La.2/6/98), .
  • Nicol E. Hannie v. Ray Allen Guidry La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
  • Hannie v. Guidry 48 So. 3d 396 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    Furthermore, an error involving the application of an incorrect principle of law warrants a de novo review by the appellate court only if legal error was prejudicial, meaning it “materially affect[ed]” the outcome of the trial court’s fact finding process and “deprive[d] a party of substantial rights.” Evans v. Lungrin, 97-541, p. 7 (La.2/6/98), .
  • Elliott v. Elliott 49 So. 3d 407 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    Evans v. Lungrin, 97-0541, 97-0577, p. 12 (La.2/6/98), ; La.
  • Pylant v. Pylant 41 So. 3d 1282 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
    Such judgment is provisional only in the sense that custody may be altered later, after material changes in circumstances occur, as illustrated in cases such as Evans v. Lungrin, 97-0541 (La.2/6/98)
  • Chandler v. Chandler 37 So. 3d 569 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
    art. 131; Evans v. Lungrin, 1997-0541 (La.2/6/98), ; Semmes v. Semmes, 45,006 (La.App.2d Cir.12/16/09), .
  • Gaydon v. Gaydon 36 So. 3d 449 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
    art. 131; Evans v. Lungrin, 1997-0541 (La.2/6/98), ; Semmes v. Semmes, 45,006 (La.App.2d Cir.12/16/09), .
  • Ratliff v. LSU Board of Supervisors 38 So. 3d 1068 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    The defendants argue that allowing the plaintiffs to portray Mr. Ratliff as an honorable, military veteran tainted the fact finding process, and, thus, a de novo review of the record is warranted, citing Evans v. Lungrin, 97-0541 (La.2/6/98), .
  • Preuett v. Preuett 38 So. 3d 551 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
  • Scott v. American Tobacco Co., Inc. 36 So. 3d 1046 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    The Louisiana Supreme Court in Evans v. Lungrin, 97-0541, p. 6 (La.2/6/98), , 735 declared: It is well-settled that a court of appeal may not set aside a trial court’s or jury’s finding of fact in the absence of “mani *1057 fest error” or unless it is “clearly wrong.”
  • Bonnecarrere v. Bonnecarrere 37 So. 3d 1038 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    ty seeking a change bears a heavy burden of proving that the continuation of the present custody is “so deleterious to the child as to justify a modification of the custody decree,” or of proving by “clear and convincing evidence that the harm likely to be caused by the change of environment is substantially outweighed by its advantages to the child.” Evans v. Lungrin, 97-0541, p. 13 (La.2/6/98), .
  • Harang v. Ponder 36 So. 3d 954 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    art. 131; Evans v. Lungrin, 97—0541 (La.2/6/98), ; Major, 849 So.2d at 550 .
  • Rosalind Reed Thibodeaux v. Lauren Wade O'Quain La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
  • Thibodeaux v. O'QUAIN 33 So. 3d 1008 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    La.Civ.Code art. 131; Evans v. Lungrin, 97-541, 97-577 (La.2/6/98), .