Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Fridge v. Talbert, 158 So. 209.

18 citing documents.

Elaine Lazard v. Progressive Paloverde Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
If this cannot be done, then the probabilities or improbabilities of their respective statements must be considered in the light of their capacity, opportunity or incentive for observation, the amount of corroboration, if any, and the degree of proof required.’ So.
Livingston C. Guidry, Et Ux. v. Kysha Lashane Bernard La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
which stated, in relevant part: Where witnesses differ, the courts should reconcile, if possible, the apparent contradictions their testimony presents.
Guidry v. Bernard 142 So. 3d 1063 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Dorsey 74 So. 3d 603 La. 2011
I might lower to where I put his [police officer’s] testimony” and “I would rank it [police officer’s testimony] as to where I would place it in my decision.” Louisiana Revised Statute § 15:432 provides there is a presumption “that the witnesses have told the truth.” In Fridge v. Talbert, this Court held “[t]he presumption is that a witness on oath testifies honestly until the contrary is shown.” , 158 So.
Miller v. Leonard 588 So. 2d 79 La. 1991
Strickland v. Pitts 506 So. 2d 1360 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
Perry v. Law 334 So. 2d 523 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
Michel v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. 314 So. 2d 535 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
West v. McDole 292 So. 2d 839 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
Zerangue v. Hardware Dealers Mutual Fire Ins. 255 So. 2d 227 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
Treadway v. State Farm Insurance Company 204 So. 2d 609 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1967
Jamison v. Reese Variety Stores, Inc. 203 So. 2d 859 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
“Where witnesses differ, the courts should reconcile, if possible, the apparent contradiction their testimony presents.” , 158 So.
Nelson v. Zurich Insurance Company 172 So. 2d 70 La. 1965
If this cannot be done, then the probabilities or improbabilities of their respective statements must be considered in the light of their capacity, opportunity or incentive for observation, the amount of corroboration, if any, and the degree of proof required.” , 158 So.
Harris v. Argonaut Insurance Company 142 So. 2d 501 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1962
State ex rel. Dupas v. City of New Orleans 125 So. 2d 375 La. 1960
Cockrell v. Penrod Drilling Co. 39 So. 2d 429 La. 1949
Fogleman v. Interurban Transp. Co. 187 So. 73 La. 1939
This court said in the case of Fridge v. Talbert, et al., , 158 So.
Schramm v. Toye Bros. Yellow Cab Co. 169 So. 116 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936