83 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1994–2026 5 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Louisiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Stobart v. State Through DOTDgreen2 sentences2022Under this standard of review, an appellate court “may not overturn a judgment of a trial court absent an error of law or a factual finding which is manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong.” Stobart v. State through Dep’t of Transp. & Dev., 617 So.2d 880 , 882 n.2 (La. 1993). 2011They are the guiding principles that aid our courts of appeal, which are our error correcting courts, when reviewing a trial court’s factual determinations.” Considering together the standards of review for legal and factual issues, Sto-bart succinctly stated: “[tjhis state’s appellate review standard, which is constitutionally based and jurisprudentially driven, is that a court of appeal may not overturn a judgment of a trial court absent an error of law or a factual finding which is manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong.” Id., 617 So.2d at 882 n. 2. | 54 | 70 |
Rodriguez v. Greengreen1 sentence2014Rodriguez v. Green, 12-0098, pp. 2-8 (La.App. 4 Cir. 6/20/12), 111 So.3d 1, 3 (citing Stobart v. State of Louisiana, Through Dep’t of Transp. & Dev., 617 So.2d 880, 882 (La.1993)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hillgreen1 sentence2010State v. Peterson, 619 So.2d 786, 790 (La.App. 4 Cir.1993); see also State v. Hill, 534 So.2d 1296, 1298 (La.App. 4 Cir.1988) (prejudicial error occurred when all evidence presented to the jury boiled down to a head-to-head confrontation between defendant and a police officer and, accordingly, the absent defense witness’s testimony may have resulted in a different outcome). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Petersongreen1 sentence2010State v. Peterson, 619 So.2d 786, 790 (La.App. 4 Cir.1993); see also State v. Hill, 534 So.2d 1296, 1298 (La.App. 4 Cir.1988) (prejudicial error occurred when all evidence presented to the jury boiled down to a head-to-head confrontation between defendant and a police officer and, accordingly, the absent defense witness’s testimony may have resulted in a different outcome). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Neder v. United States
green
2 sentences2018However, in Neder v. United States , 527 U.S. 1 , 119 S.Ct. 1827 , 144 L.Ed.2d 35 (1999), the U.S. Supreme Court further held that "a [jury] instruction that omits an element of the offense does not necessarily render a criminal trial fundamentally unfair or an unreliable vehicle for determining guilt or innocence." Further, "where a reviewing court concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that the omitted element was uncontested and supported by overwhelming evidence, such that the jury verdict would have been the same absent the error, the erroneous instruction is properly found to be harmless." 2018However, in Neder v. United States , 527 U.S. 1 , 119 S.Ct. 1827 , 144 L.Ed.2d 35 (1999), the U.S. Supreme Court further held that "a [jury] instruction that omits an element of the offense does not necessarily render a criminal trial fundamentally unfair or an unreliable vehicle for determining guilt or innocence." Further, "where a reviewing court concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that the omitted element was uncontested and supported by overwhelming evidence, such that the jury verdict would have been the same absent the error, the erroneous instruction is properly found to be harmless." | 8 | 2010–2026 |
Rosell v. Esco
green
2 sentences2004Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840 (La.1989); Stobart v. State through Department of Transportation and Development, 617 So.2d 880 (La.1993). 2003Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840 (La.1989); Stobart v. State through Department of Transportation and Development, 617 So.2d 880 (La.1993). | 3 | 2003–2004 |
Arias v. Stolthaven New Orleans, L.L.C.
green
2 sentences2020Arias v. Stolthaven New Orleans, L.L.C., 08-1111 (La. 5/5/09), 9 So.3d 815, 818 . 2013The Louisiana Supreme Court, in Arias v. Stolthaven New Orleans, L.L.C., 08-111, p. 5 (La.5/05/09), 9 So.3d 815, 818 , instructs: A court of appeal may not overturn a judgment of a trial court absent an error of law or a factual finding that was manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong. | 2 | 2013–2020 |
Wooley v. Lucksinger
green
2 sentences2018Wooley v. Lucksinger , 09-0571 (La. 4/1/11), 61 So.3d 507 , 554. 2018Wooley v. Lucksinger , 09-0571 (La. 4/1/11), 61 So.3d 507 , 554. | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Markerson v. Composite Architectural Design Sys., LLC
green
1 sentence2021App. 1 Cir. 7/10/18), 255 So.3d 1065 , 1072–73, explains these differing standards of review: This state's appellate review standard, which is constitutionally based and jurisprudentially driven, is that a court of appeal may not overturn a judgment of a trial court absent an error of law or a factual finding which is manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Washington v. Recuenco
green
2 sentences2011The Gibson court also cited Washington v. Recuenco, 548 U.S. 212 , 126 S.Ct. 2546 , 165 L.Ed.2d 466 (2006), wherein the trial court imposed an enhanced sentence for a firearm based solely on the jury’s finding that the defendant was armed with a deadly weapon. 2011The Gibson court also cited Washington v. Recuenco, 548 U.S. 212 , 126 S.Ct. 2546 , 165 L.Ed.2d 466 (2006), wherein the trial court imposed an enhanced sentence for a firearm based solely on the jury’s finding that the defendant was armed with a deadly weapon. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Lasyone v. Kansas City Southern RR
green
1 sentence2011They are the guiding principles that aid our courts of appeal, which are our error correcting courts, when reviewing a trial court’s factual determinations.” Considering together the standards of review for legal and factual issues, Sto-bart succinctly stated: “[tjhis state’s appellate review standard, which is constitutionally based and jurisprudentially driven, is that a court of appeal may not overturn a judgment of a trial court absent an error of law or a factual finding which is manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong.” Id., 617 So.2d at 882 n. 2. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
MKM, L.L.C. v. Rebstock Marine Transportation, Inc.
neutral
1 sentence2003Stobart v. State, Department of Transportation and Development, 617 So.2d 880, 882, n. 2 (La.1993); MKM, L.L.C. v. Rebstock Marine Transportation, Inc., 99-0431 at p. 7, 773 So.2d at 781 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Succession of Mydland
green
1 sentence2002Succession of Mydland, 94-0501, p. 3 (La.App. 1st Cir.3/3/95), 653 So.2d 8, 10 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.