10 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1948–2001 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Canter v. Koehring Companygreen2 sentences2001In Canter v. Koehring Co., 283 So.2d 716, 724 (La.1973), this court defined that standard in the following manner: When there is evidence before the trier of fact which, upon its reasonable evaluation of credibility, furnishes a reasonable factual basis for the trial court’s finding, on review the appellate court should not disturb this factual finding in the absence of manifest error. 2000In Canter v. Koehring Co., 283 So.2d 716, 724 (La.1973), this court defined that standard in the following manner: *333 When there is evidence before the trier of fact which, upon its reasonable evaluation of credibility, furnishes a reasonable factual basis for the trial court's finding, on review the appellate court should not disturb this factual finding in the absence of manifest error. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Petersgreen1 sentence2001See, e.g., State v. Square, 257 La. 743 , 244 So.2d 200, 217-18 (La.1971) ("We recognized then, and we reiterate today, the legislative mandate to preserve grand jury secrecy unless a clearly defined exception is announced by the Legislature."); State v. Peters, 406 So.2d 189, 191 ("An accused's constitutional rights cannot be thwarted by state law."). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Squaregreen2 sentences2001See, e.g., State v. Square, 257 La. 743 , 244 So.2d 200, 217-18 (La.1971) ("We recognized then, and we reiterate today, the legislative mandate to preserve grand jury secrecy unless a clearly defined exception is announced by the Legislature."); State v. Peters, 406 So.2d 189, 191 ("An accused's constitutional rights cannot be thwarted by state law."). 2001See, e.g., State v. Square, 257 La. 743 , 244 So.2d 200, 217-18 (La.1971) ("We recognized then, and we reiterate today, the legislative mandate to preserve grand jury secrecy unless a clearly defined exception is announced by the Legislature."); State v. Peters, 406 So.2d 189, 191 ("An accused's constitutional rights cannot be thwarted by state law."). | 1 | 1 |
Hay v. SEARS ROEBUCK & COMPANYgreen1 sentence1976In the case of Hay v. Sears, Roebuck & Company, 224 So.2d 496, 498 (3rd Cir. 1969) this Court defined the standard of care owed by a business establishment to its customers to be as follows: “The law applicable to the facts and circumstances presented here is well established. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hudsongreen2 sentences1971See also State v. Hudson, 253 La. 992 , 221 So.2d 484 (1969). 1971See also State v. Hudson, 253 La. 992 , 221 So.2d 484 (1969). | 1 | 1 |
Conners v. Houma Packing Co.green1 sentence1948See Conners v. Houma Packing Co., Inc., et al., 12 La. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Herlitz Const. Co., Inc. v. Hotel Investors of New Iberia, Inc.
green
1 sentence1990Herlitz Construction Company, Inc. v. Hotel Investors of New Iberia, Inc., 396 So.2d 878 (La.1981). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Brown v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company
green
2 sentences1979Brown v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 234 La. 860 , 101 So.2d 696 (1958) in which the Court defined the standard under Article 2315 as a "common-sense test ... how would a reasonably prudent man have acted or what precautions would he have taken if faced with similar conditions and circumstances?" 1979Brown v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 234 La. 860 , 101 So.2d 696 (1958) in which the Court defined the standard under Article 2315 as a "common-sense test ... how would a reasonably prudent man have acted or what precautions would he have taken if faced with similar conditions and circumstances?" | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Stovall v. Denno
green
2 sentences1967For Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 , 87 S.Ct. 1967 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 , declared unmistakably “that Wade * * affect only those cases and all future cases which involve confrontations for identification purposes conducted in the absence of counsel after this date (June 12, 1967).” (Parentheses added.) The lineup in the case at bar, of course, occurred years before the Wade Case decision and it is unaffected thereby. 1967For Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 , 87 S.Ct. 1967 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 , declared unmistakably “that Wade * * affect only those cases and all future cases which involve confrontations for identification purposes conducted in the absence of counsel after this date (June 12, 1967).” (Parentheses added.) The lineup in the case at bar, of course, occurred years before the Wade Case decision and it is unaffected thereby. | 1 | 1967–1967 |
Michelli v. Rheem Mfg. Co.
green
1 sentence1952The principle is well stated in Michelli v. Rheem Manufacturing Company, La.App., 34 So.2d 264, 270 , as follows: “It is a well defined rule of law that he who by his negligence creates a dangerous situation is liable to one who, acting as a reasonably prudent person would act, is injured while attempting to avoid the created danger.” For the reasons assigned the judgment appealed from is affirmed at appellant’s cost. | 1 | 1952–1952 |
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.