DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite In re Hearin, 786 So. 2d 682.

159 citing documents.

  • Goudia v. Mann 98 So. 3d 364 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    4 Cir. 3/29/06) , -89 (citing Lasyone v. Kansas City S. R.R., 00-2628 (La.4/3/01), ).
  • Franatovich v. St. Bernard Parish Government 88 So. 3d 1169 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    That “an accident occurred because of a vice or defect does not elevate the condition of the thing to that of an unreasonably dangerous defect.”
  • State v. Carter 84 So. 3d 499 La. 2012
    R.R., 00-2628, p. 13 (La.4/3/01), .
  • Chambers v. Village of Moreauville 85 So. 3d 593 La. 2012
    Lasyone v. Kansas City Southern R.R., 00-2628 (La.4/3/01), ; Dupree v. City of New Orleans, 1999-3651 (La.8/31/00), .
  • Dejoie v. Guidry 71 So. 3d 1111 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    See Lasyone v. Kansas City Southern R.R., 00-2628, p. 13 (La.4/3/01), ; Katner v. Katner, 09-0974, p. 6 (La.App.
  • Starr v. State Ex Rel. Department of Transportation & Development 70 So. 3d 128 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
    Lasyone v. Kansas City Southern Railroad, 00-2628 (La.04/03/01), ; Netecke, supra.
  • Sherrie L. Lafleur v. Shelter Mutual Insurance Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    Lasyone v. Kansas City Southern Railroad, 00-2628, p. 13 (La.4/3/01)
  • Wooley v. Lucksinger 61 So. 3d 507 La. 2011
    As the court pointed out in Lasyone v. Kansas City Southern R.R., 2000-2628 p. 6 (La.4/3/01), -688 , “[tjhese standards for manifest error review are not new.
  • Johnson v. Lee 54 So. 3d 704 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    Lasyone v. Kansas City Southern Railroad, 00-2628, p. 13 (La.4/3/01), .
  • Milton v. E & M OIL CO. 47 So. 3d 1091 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
    Lasyone v. Kansas City Southern R. Co., 2000-2628 (La.4/3/01), , and citations therein.
  • Richardson v. Woodruff 35 So. 3d 1139 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    Lasyone v. Kansas City Southern R.R., 2000-2628 (La.4/3/01), ; Stobart v. State, Department of Transportation and Development
  • In Re Barthelemy 35 So. 3d 388 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2010
    Lasyone v. Kansas City Southern Railroad, 00-2628, p. 13 (La.4/3/01), .
  • Barthelemy v. State ex rel. Louisiana State University Health Science Center 35 So. 3d 388 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    Lasyone v. Kansas City Southern Railroad, 00-2628, p. 13 (La.4/3/01), .
  • Williams Ex Rel. Williams v. Jones 34 So. 3d 926 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    Lasyone v. Kansas City Southern R.R., 00-2628, pp. 14-15 (La.4/3/01), .
  • Flowers v. Entergy Corporation 30 So. 3d 283 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    Lasyone v. Kansas City Southern Railroad, 00-2628, p. 13 (La.4/3/01), .
  • Pollard v. Alpha Technical 31 So. 3d 576 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    “The rule that questions of credibility are for the trier of fact applies to the evaluation of expert testimony, unless the stated reasons of the expert are patently unsound.” Lasyone v. Kansas City Southern Railroad, 00-2628, p. 13 (La.4/3/01), .
  • Katner v. Katner 28 So. 3d 566 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    "The rule that questions of credibility are for the trier of fact applies to the evaluation of expert testimony, unless the stated reasons of the expert are patently unsound.” Lasyone v. Kansas City Southern Railroad, 00-2628, p. 13 (La.4/3/01), .
  • Carol Ann St. Julian v. Harold Wiltz La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
    Lasyone v. Kansas City Southern Railroad, 00-2628, p. 13 (La.4/3/01)
  • St. Julian v. Wiltz 21 So. 3d 449 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    Lasyone v. Kansas City Southern Railroad, 00-2628, p. 13 (La.4/3/01), .
  • Westcott v. Westcott 11 So. 3d 45 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    “The rule that questions of credibility are for the trier of fact applies to the evaluation of expert testimony, unless the stated reasons of the expert are patently unsound.” Galen-Med, Inc., 05-0788, p. 14, 928 So.2d at 689 , citing Lasyone v. Kansas City Southern R.R., 00-2628 (La.4/3/01), .
  • Beaucoudray v. Walsh 9 So. 3d 916 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    at 806-807, citing Lasyone v. Kansas City Southern Railroad, 00-2628, p. 13 (La.4/3/01), .
  • Billy Kibodeaux v. Progressive Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
    The reviewing court must always keep in mind that, “ if the trial court or jury’s findings are reasonable in light of the record reviewed in its entirety, the court of appeal may not reverse, even if convinced that had it been sitting as the trier of fact, it would have weighed the evidence differently.”
  • Kibodeaux v. Progressive Ins. Co. 4 So. 3d 222 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    The reviewing court must always keep in mind that, “if the trial court or jury’s findings are reasonable in light of the record reviewed in its entirety, the court of appeal may not reverse, even if convinced that had it been sitting as the trier of fact, it would have weighed the evidence differently.” Lasyone v. Kansas City Southern Railroad, *225
  • Orrill v. Orrill 5 So. 3d 279 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    “The rule that questions of credibility are for the trier of fact applies to the evaluation of expert testimony, unless the stated reasons of the expert are patently unsound.” Lasyone v. Kansas City Southern Railroad, 2000-2628, p. 13 (La.4/3/01), (citation omitted).
  • Forbes v. Cockerham 5 So. 3d 839 La. 2009
    Lasyone v. Kansas City Southern R.R., 2000-2628 p. 8 (La.4/3/01), .
  • Lotridge v. Abril 3 So. 3d 84 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
    See Lasyone v. Kansas City Southern R., 00-2628, p. 6 (La.4/3/01), , at fn.
  • Harris v. STATE EX REL. DOTD 997 So. 2d 849 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
    Lasyone v. Kansas City S.R.R., 00-2628, p. 8 (La.4/3/01), .
  • Clarkston v. Louisiana Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance 989 So. 2d 164 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
    Lasyone v. Kansas City Southern R.R., 00-2628, pp. 7-8 (La.4/3/01), , on remand, 99-0735 (La.App.
  • Clarkston v. LA. FARM BUREAU CAS. INS. CO. 989 So. 2d 164 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
    Lasyone v. Kansas City Southern R.R., 00-2628, pp. 7-8 (La.4/3/01), , on remand, 99-0735 (La.
  • Adams v. Rhodia, Inc. 983 So. 2d 798 La. 2008
    Lasyone v. Kansas City Southern Railroad, 00-2628, p. 13 (La.4/3/01), .
  • Burmaster v. Plaquemines Parish Government 982 So. 2d 795 La. 2008
    Lasyone v. Kansas City Southern R.R., 00-2628, p. 6 (La.4/3/01), fn.
  • Bellard v. American Cent. Ins. Co. 980 So. 2d 654 La. 2008
    Lasyone v. Kansas City Southern Railroad, 00-2628, p. 13 (La.4/3/01), .
  • Forbes v. Cockerham 985 So. 2d 86 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
    Lasyone v. Kansas City Southern R.R., 2000-2628, p. 8 (La.4/3/01), .
  • Hager v. STATE, EX REL. DOTD 978 So. 2d 454 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
    Lasyone v. Kansas City S.R.R., 00-2628, p. 8 (La.4/3/01), .
  • Hager v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation & Development 978 So. 2d 454 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
    Lasyone v. Kansas City S. R.R., 00-2628, p. 8 (La.4/3/01), .
  • Hebert v. Rapides Parish Police Jury 974 So. 2d 635 La. 2008
    Lasyone v. Kansas City Southern Railroad, 00-2628, p. 13 (La.4/3/01), .
  • Estate of Derrick Francis v. City of Rayne La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
    4/3/01), wherein the supreme court noted that “it is well accepted that the trier of fact is charged with the determination of what credibility it assigns to expert witnesses and then to decide which expert among those testifying that it finds more credible.” The photographs showing the resting place of the Francis v
  • Estate of Francis v. City of Rayne 966 So. 2d 1105 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
    See Lasyone v. Kansas City S.R.R., 00-2628, p. 11 (La.4/3/01), , wherein the supreme court noted that "it is well accepted that the trier of fact is charged with the determination of what credibility it assigns to expert witnesses and then to decide which expert among those testifying that it finds more credible."
  • Pyles v. Weaver 958 So. 2d 753 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2007
    2 Cir. 6/25/03), , citing Lasyone v. Kansas City Southern R.R., 00-2628 (La.4/3/01), .
  • Ernest Broussard, Indiv. v. Medical Protective Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
    4/3/01), the supreme court observed that “it is well accepted that the trier of fact is charged with the determination of what credibility it assigns to expert witnesses and then to decide which expert among those testifying that it finds more credible.” While the responsibility of credibility determinations rests wit
  • Broussard v. Medical Protective Co. 952 So. 2d 813 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
    In Lasyone v. Kansas City Southern Railroad, 00-2628, p. 11 (La.4/3/01), , the supreme court observed that "it is well accepted that the trier of fact is charged with the determination of what credibility it assigns to expert witnesses and then to decide which expert among those testifying that it finds more credible."
  • Brandy Aday v. State of La, Thru the Dotd La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
    4/3/01), (citations omitted), the supreme court explained the concept of cause-in-fact, stating: A party’s conduct is a cause-in-fact of the harm if it was a substantial factor in bringing about the harm.
  • Aday v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation & Development 950 So. 2d 928 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
    In Lasyone v. Kansas City Southern Railroad, 00-2628, p. 9 (La.4/3/01), (citations omitted), the supreme court explained the concept of cause-in-fact, stating: A party’s conduct is a cause-in-fact of the harm if it was a substantial factor in bringing about the harm.
  • Aday v. STATE EX REL. DEPT. OF TRANSPORT. 950 So. 2d 928 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
    In Lasyone v. Kansas City Southern Railroad, 00-2628, p. 9 (La.4/3/01), (citations omitted), the supreme court explained the concept of cause-in-fact, stating: A party's conduct is a cause-in-fact of the harm if it was a substantial factor in bringing about the harm.
  • Detraz v. Lee 950 So. 2d 557 La. 2007
    Lasyone v. Kansas City Southern R.R., 2000-2628 (La.4/3/01), .
  • Hanks v. Entergy Corp. 944 So. 2d 564 La. 2006
    4/3/01), ; Lirette v. State Farm Ins.
  • Foley v. Entergy Louisiana, Inc. 946 So. 2d 144 La. 2006
    Lasyone v. Kansas City Southern Railroad, 00-2628, p. 13 (La.4/3/01), .
  • Cockrell Oil & Gas Corp. v. Jack Caldwell La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
  • Cockrell Oil & Gas Corp. v. Caldwell 942 So. 2d 88 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    City S.R.R., 00-2628 (La.4/3/01), .
  • Cook v. Kendrick 931 So. 2d 420 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
    Lasyone v. Kansas City Southern R.R., 2000-2628 (La.04/03/01), .