manifestly erroneous standard in Louisiana

2025“Similarly, mixed questions of law and fact are reviewed under the manifestly erroneous standard of review.” Id. (citing Chimneywood Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. v. Eagan Ins.

2025“Similarly, mixed questions of law and fact are reviewed under the manifestly erroneous standard of review.” Id. (citing Chimneywood Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. v. Eagan Ins.

2002Charles v. Travelers Insurance Company, 627 So.2d 1366 (La.1993).

1996Charles v. Travelers Insurance Company, 627 So.2d 1366 (La.1993).

2011Boykins v. Boykins, 07-0542, p. 3 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/30/08), 984 So.2d 181, 184 .

2009Boykins v. Boykins, 07-0542, p. 3 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/30/08), 984 So.2d 181, 184 .

2008Lang v. Asten, Inc., 04-1665, p. 12 (La.App. 4 Cir. 3/30/05), 900 So.2d 1031, 1039 .

2006Id. at p. 12, 900 So.2d at 1039 .

2001APPORTIONMENT OF FAULT Turning now to the issue of apportionment of fault, we note: Where an alleged tortfeasor is found to be blameless by a factfinder and comparative fault is, therefore, not assessed between the parties, an appellate court is not compelled to apply the manifestly erroneous standard of review and the Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., 341 So.2d 332 (La.1977) methodology in lowering or raising the percentages of fault.

2000Where an alleged tortfeasor is found to be blameless by a factfinder and comparative fault is, therefore, not assessed between the parties, an appellate court is not compelled to apply the manifestly erroneous standard of review and the Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., 341 So.2d 332 (La.1977) methodology in lowering or raising the percentages *363 of fault.

1995Rosell, supra .

1991The most recent discussion of the manifestly erroneous standard of review is found in Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840 (La.1989) where the court stated unambiguously: The appellate review of fact is not completed by reading only so much of the record as will reveal a reasonable factual basis for the finding in the trial court, but if the trial court or jury findings are reasonable in light of the record reviewed in its entirety, the court of appeal may not reverse even though convinced that had it been sitting as the trier of fact, it would have weighed the evidence differently.

2024State in the Interest of R.J.S., supra. In a civil contempt, the stringent criminal burden of proof and standard for appellate review do not apply. 8 Meek, supra. The burden of proof for civil contempt is by a preponderance of the evidence and appellate review is by the manifestly erroneous standard.

2020“The burden of proof in a civil contempt proceeding is by a preponderance of the evidence and appellate review is the manifestly erroneous standard.” Id. (citing Kirschman, 2012-0385, p. 2, 109 So.3d at 31 ).

2020“The burden of proof in a civil contempt proceeding is by a preponderance of the evidence and appellate review is the manifestly erroneous standard.” Id. (citing Kirschman, 2012-0385, p. 2, 109 So.3d at 31 ).

2015“The burden of proof in a civil contempt proceeding is by a preponderance of the evidence and appellate review is the manifestly erroneous standard.” Id. (citing Talton v. USAA Casualty Ins.

2015Joseph v. Entergy, 2005-0263, p. 5 (La.App. 4 Cir. 8/3/05); 918 So.2d 47, 51 .

2015Co., 2006-1513, p. 16 (La.App. 4 Cir. 3/19/08), 981 So.2d 696, 713 ).

2014Weaver v. Weaver, 12-238 (La.App. 5 Cir. 12/11/12) , 106 So.3d 1116 .

2014Weaver v. Weaver, 12-238 (La.App. 5 Cir. 12/11/12) , 106 So.3d 1116 .

2010Id. 7 | 21To find a person guilty of constructive contempt, it is necessary to find that he violated the order of court intentionally, knowingly and purposefully, without justifiable excuse.

2009Evangeline Farmers Cooperative v. Fontenot, 565 So.2d 1040 (La.App. 3 Cir.1990).

2008Hammell v. GICILI, 07-0867, p. 2 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2/13/08), 978 So.2d 1022, 1024 .

2005Id.

2003Davis v. Harmony House Nursing Home, 35,080 (La.App. 2 Cir. 10/31/01), 800 So.2d 92 , writ denied, 01-3162 (La.2/22/02), 810 So.2d 1143 .

2003Davis v. Harmony House Nursing Home, 35,080 (La.App. 2 Cir. 10/31/01), 800 So.2d 92 , writ denied, 01-3162 (La.2/22/02), 810 So.2d 1143 .

2001State v. Taylor, 554 So.2d 232, 233 (La.App. 2d Cir.1989), writ denied, 556 So.2d 559 (La.1990); Parish of Jefferson, supra .

1999"The unreasonable risk of harm criterion entails a myriad of considerations and cannot be applied mechanically." Oster, supra at 1288 .

1987In Rogers v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co., 352 U.S. 500 , 77 S.Ct. 443 , 1 L.Ed.2d 493 (1957), the U.S. Supreme Court commented on the applicable standard of review of cases tried under federal statutes such as the Jones Act.

1987In Rogers v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co., 352 U.S. 500 , 77 S.Ct. 443 , 1 L.Ed.2d 493 (1957), the U.S. Supreme Court commented on the applicable standard of review of cases tried under federal statutes such as the Jones Act.

1985Accordingly, in such cases a less restrictive standard of review than the manifestly erroneous test of Arceneaux v. Domingue, 365 So.2d 1330 (La.1978) is applicable.