green
Positive treatment
5.1 score
Treatment trajectory · 1984 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1984
2005
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Marshall v. Courvelle Toyota
In West, supra, we identified a third factor especially apt in compensation actions: “the appellate court is not required by [the |7manifest error/clearly wrong] principle to affirm the trier of fact’s refusal to accept as credible uncontradicted testimony ... where the record indicates no sound reason for its rejection and where the factual finding itself has been reached by overlooking applicable legal principles.” West, 371 So.2d at 1150 ; See Thomas v. RPM Corp., 449 So.2d 18, 21 (La.App. 1st Cir.), writ denied, 450 So.2d 965 (La.1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
Jeffers v. Kentucky Fried Chicken
However: “[T]he appellate court is not required by [the manifest error/clearly wrong] principle to affirm the trier of fact’s refusal to accept as credible uncontradicted testimony ... where the record indicates no sound reason for its rejection and where the factual finding itself has been reached by overlooking applicable legal principles.” West [v. Bayou Vista Manor, Inc.], 371 So.2d at 1150; See Thomas v. RPM Corp., 449 So.2d 18, 21 (La.App. 1st Cir.), writ denied, 450 So.2d 965 (La.1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
Handy v. Richard's Cajun Country Food
In West, supra, we identified a third factor especially apt in compensation actions: “the appellate court is not required by [the manifest error/clearly wrong] principle to affirm the trier of fact’s refusal to accept as credible uncontradicted testimony ... where the record indicates no sound reason for its rejection and where the factual finding itself has been reached by overlooking applicable legal principles.” West, 371 So.2d at 1150 ; See Thomas v. RPM Corp., 449 So.2d 18, 21 (La.App. 1st Cir.), writ denied, 450 So.2d 965 (La.1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
Roszell v. National Union Fire Ins. Co.
In West, supra, we identified a third factor especially apt in compensation actions: `the appellate court is not required by [the manifest error/clearly wrong] principle to affirm the trier of fact's refusal to accept as credible uncontradicted testimony ... where the record indicates no sound reason for its rejection and where the factual finding itself has been reached by overlooking applicable legal principles.' West, 371 So.2d at 1150 ; See Thomas v. RPM Corp., 449 So.2d 18, 21 (La.App. 1st Cir.), writ denied, 450 So.2d 965 (La. 1984)." In the case sub judice, the trial court in its writte…
discussed
Cited "see"
Bruno v. Harbert Intern. Inc.
In West, supra, we identified a third factor especially apt in compensation actions: "the appellate court is not required by [the manifest error/clearly wrong] principle to affirm the trier of fact's refusal to accept as credible uncontradicted testimony ... where the record indicates no sound reason for its rejection and where the factual finding itself has been reached by overlooking applicable legal principles." West, 371 So.2d at 1150 ; See Thomas v. RPM Corp., 449 So.2d 18, 21 (La.App. 1st Cir.), writ denied, 450 So.2d 965 (La.1984).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. McClinton
See State v. Miller, 449 So.2d 1361 (La.App. 1st Cir.1984), writ denied, 450 So.2d 965 (La.1984).
cited
Cited "see"
Foster v. Chambers Construction Co.
See, Thomas v. RPM Corporation, 449 So.2d 18, 21 (La.App. 1st Cir.1984), writ denied, 450 So.2d 965 (La.1984); West v. Bayou Vista Manor, Inc., 371 So.2d 1146, 1147 (La.1979).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Seay v. Wilson
See also Thomas v. RPM Corp., 449 So.2d 18 (La.App. 1st Cir.), writ denied, 450 So.2d 965 (La.1984).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE of Louisiana
v.
Lonnie E. MILLER.
v.
Lonnie E. MILLER.
84-K-0889.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Jun 1, 1984.
450 So. 2d 965
Lemmon.
Published
Denied.
LEMMON, J., would grant as to Assignment of Error # 2.