manifest error in Louisiana

2026In Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840, 844 (La.1989), the supreme court discussed the manifest error-clearly wrong standard in detail, stating: It is well settled that a court of appeal may not set aside a trial court’s or a jury’s finding of fact in the absence of “manifest error” or unless it is “clearly wrong,” and where there is conflict in the testimony, reasonable evaluations of credibility and reasonable inferences of fact should not be disturbed upon review, even though the appellate court may feel that its own evaluations and inferences are as reasonable.

2025“When findings are based on determinations regarding the credibility of witnesses, the manifest error-clearly wrong standard demands great deference to the trier of fact’s findings; for only the factfinder can be aware of the variations in demeanor and tone of voice that bear so heavily on the listener’s understanding and belief in what is said.” Id., quoting Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So. 2d 840, 844 (La. 1989).3 Recognizing both witnesses’ credibility issues, we cannot find manifest error in the City Court’s decision to credit McNeal over Jackson.

2025In Bonin v. Ferrellgas, Inc., 2003-3024, p.6 (La. 7/2/04), 877 So.2d 89, 94 , the court provided the following guidance on manifest error: Under the manifest error standard, in order to reverse a trial court's determination of a fact, an appellate court must review the record in its entirety and (1) find that a reasonable factual basis does not exist for the finding, and (2) further determine that the record establishes that the fact finder is clearly wrong or manifestly erroneous. (citing Stobart v. State through Dept. of Transp. and Development, 617 So.2d 880, 882 .) Appellees presented phot

2025However, “[w]here one or more legal errors interdict the [district] court’s fact-finding process . . . the manifest error standard becomes inapplicable, and the appellate court must conduct its own de novo review of the record.” Id. (quoting Hamp’s Constr., L.L.C. v. Hous.

2017Instead, as articulated in Mart, the proper standard where an appellate court disturbs the trier of fact’s causation finding is the manifest error/clearly wrong standard, under which the appellate court: (i) must find from the record that there is no reasonable factual basis for the trial court’s finding, and (ii) must further determine that the record establishes that the finding is clearly wrong (manifestly erroneous). 505 So. 2d at 1127 .

2017Instead, as articulated in Mart,-the proper standard where an appellate court disturbs the trier of-fact’s causation finding is the manifest error/clearly wrong standard, under which the appellate court: (i) must find from the record that there is no reasonable factual basis for the trial court’s finding, and (ii) must further determine that the record establishes that the finding is clearly wrong (manifestly erroneous). 505 So.2d at 1127 .

2017Bruno v. Harbert Int’l Inc., 593 So.2d 357 (La.1992), This standard of review precludes an appellate court from setting aside a trial court’s finding of fact in the absence of a manifest error or unless it is clearly wrong.

2014It concedes the manifest error rule as to factual findings and the vast discretion accorded to credibility calls, Bruno v. Harbert Int’l Inc., 593 So.2d 357 (La.1992).

2025Canter v. Koehring Co., 283 So. 2d 716 (La. 1973); Spurrell, supra. However, the manifest error rule applies both to testimonial and documentary evidence.

2023“When findings are based on determinations regarding the credibility of witnesses, the manifest error—clearly wrong standard demands great deference to the trier of fact’s findings; for only the factfinder can be aware of the variations in demeanor and tone of voice that bear so heavily on the listener’s understanding and belief in what is said.” Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840, 844 (La. 1989) (citing Canter, 283 So.2d at 724 ).

2017As noted in Banks v. Industrial Roofing & Sheet Metal Works, Inc., 96-2840, pp. 7-8 (La. 7/1/97), 696 So.2d 551 , 556 (alteration in original): Factual findings in workers’ compensation cases are subject to the manifest error or clearly wrong standard of appellate review.

2013“Factual findings in a workers’ compensation case are subject to the manifest error or clearly wrong standard of appellate review.” Banks, 696 So.2d at 556 .

2012Allocations of fault are reviewed according to the manifest error/clearly wrong standard enunciated in Arceneaux v. Domingue, 365 So.2d 1330, 1333 (La.1978), and Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840, 844 (La.1989).

2007Co., 469 So.2d 967 (La.1985); Arceneaux, supra. Where the fact finder’s conclusions are based on determinations regarding credibility of the witnesses, the manifest error standard demands great deference to the trier of fact, because only the trier of fact can be aware of the variations in demeanor and tone of voice that bear so heavily on the listener’s understanding and belief in what is said.

1999The manifest error standard of review assumes that "consequential evidentiary rulings and instructions on the law were correct and proper." McLean v. Hunter, 495 So.2d 1298, 1304 (La.1986).

1998Onan contends that on the basis of this evidentiary error, this Court must conduct an independent review of the record without deference to the trial court's findings and without reliance on the manifest error standard, citing McLean v. Hunter, 495 So.2d 1298 (La.1986).

2025The manifest error standard of review “precludes the setting aside of a district court’s finding of fact unless that finding is clearly wrong in light of the record viewed in its entirety.” Hall v. Folger Coffee Co., 03-01734, p. 9 (La. 4/14/04), 874 So.2d 90 . 98.

2023Mr. Seals timely filed this devolutive appeal. 9 STANDARD OF REVIEW In civil cases, an appellate court employs the manifest error or clearly wrong standard of review, “which precludes the setting aside of a trial court’s finding of fact unless that finding is clearly wrong in light of the record reviewed in its entirety.” Spencer v. Valero Refining Mereaux, L.L.C., 2022-00469, 00539, 00730, p. 8 (La. 1/1/23), ___ So.3d. ___, ___, 2023 WL 533268 , at *4 (citing Hall v. Folger Coffee Co., 2003-1734, p. 9 (La. 4/14/04), 874 So.2d 90, 98 ; Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840, 844 (La. 1989)).

2014DISCUSSION Standard of Review In Virgil v. American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Co., 507 So.2d 825 (La.1987), and Shephard v. Scheeler, 96-1690 (La.10/21/97), 701 So.2d 1308 , our supreme court held that even when a case is submitted to the trial judge for decision on record evidence only with no live testimony, we are nonetheless obligated to apply the manifest error standard when reviewing the case on appeal.

2013Our supreme court, in Virgil v. American Guarantee and Liability Insurance Co., 507 So.2d 825, 826 (La.1987) (quoting Canter v. Koehring Co., 288 So.2d 716, 724 (La.1973) (emphasis in Virgil)), stated: The manifest error standard and its purpose were stated succinctly in Canter v. Koehring Co., 283 So.2d 716 (La.1973), as follows: “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

2010II Whether comparative fault applies in a given case is a factual determination governed by the manifest error standard of review; hence, “[o]nly if the apportionment of fault is found to be clearly wrong can an appellate court adjust percentages.” Ambrose v. McLaney, 06-1181 at p. 10, 959 So.2d at 536 (quoting Maldonado v. Louisiana Superdome Comm’n., 95-2490, p. 10 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1/22/97), 687 So.2d 1087, 1093 , (citing Clement v. Frey, 95-01119, pp. 7-7 (La.1/16/96), 666 So.2d 607, 610-11 )).

2009C.C. art. 2323 applies in a given case is a factual determination governed by the manifest error standard of review; hence, “[o]nly if the apportionment of fault is found to be clearly wrong can an appellate court adjust percentages.” Ambrose v. McLauey, 06-1181, p. 10 (La.App. 4 Cir. 5/16/07), 959 So.2d 529, 536 (citing Maldonado v. Louisiana Superdome Comm’n, 95-2490, p. 10 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1/22/97), 687 So.2d 1087, 1093 ) (citing Clement v. Frey, 95-1119, pp. 7-8 (La.1/16/96), 666 So.2d 607, 610-11 ).

2025“This determination is a factual one governed by the manifest error standard of review.” Id.

2024“This determination is a factual one governed by the manifest error standard of review.” Id.

2025Where, however, legal errors materially affected the outcome of the case and deprived a party of substantial rights the manifest error standard is no longer applicable and if the record is otherwise complete, the appellate court should make its own de novo review of the record and determine a preponderance of the evidence.” Evans v. Lungrin, 97-541 (La. 2/6/98), 708 So.2d 731, 735 .

2025“However, where one or more trial court legal errors interdict the fact-finding process, the manifest error standard of review is no longer applicable, and if the record is otherwise complete, the appellate court should make its own independent de novo review of the record and determine a preponderance of the evidence.” Evans v. Lungrin, 97-0541 (La. 2/6/98), 708 So.2d 731, 735 .

2016If the plaintiff was discharged for filing a workers’ compensation claim, such may be compensatory in accordance with appropriate law, but the workers’ compensation administrative court has no jurisdiction of the matter; only a district court has jurisdiction to determine that issue. | ^Standard of Review “Factual findings iri workers’ compensation = cases are'subject to the manifest error or clearly wrong standard of appellate review.” Seal v. Gaylord Container Corp. Banks v. Industrial Roofing & Sheet Metal Works, 97-0688, p. 4 (La.12/2/97), 704 So.2d 1161, 1164 (citations omitted) “In apply

2016If the plaintiff was discharged for filing a workers’ compensation claim, such may be compensatory in accordance with appropriate law, but the workers’ compensation administrative court has no jurisdiction of the matter; only a district court has jurisdiction to determine that issue. | ^Standard of Review “Factual findings iri workers’ compensation = cases are'subject to the manifest error or clearly wrong standard of appellate review.” Seal v. Gaylord Container Corp. Banks v. Industrial Roofing & Sheet Metal Works, 97-0688, p. 4 (La.12/2/97), 704 So.2d 1161, 1164 (citations omitted) “In apply

2022See Ferrell v. Fireman' s Fund Insurance Co., 94- 1252 ( La. 2/ 20/ 95), 650 So. 2d 742, 747 (" Where one or more trial court legal errors Mr. Perry was not asked whether anything prevented MADCON from firing him. 11 interdict the fact- finding process, the manifest error standard is no longer applicable, and, if the record is otherwise complete, the appellate court should make its own independent de novo review of the record and determine a preponderance of the evidence.").

2000Co., 94-1252, p. 7 (La.2/20/95); 650 So.2d 742, 747 , provides: Where one or more trial court legal errors interdict the fact-finding process, the manifest error standard is no longer applicable, and, if the record is otherwise complete, the appellate court should make its own independent de novo review of the record and determine a preponderance of the evidence.

2007DISCUSSION Standard of Review In Freeman v. Poulan/Weed Eater, 93-1530 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1/14/94) , 630 So.2d 733 , the Louisiana Supreme Court discussed the standard of review to be used in workers' compensation cases as follows: In a workers' compensation case, as in other cases, the appellate court's review is governed by the manifest error or clearly wrong standard.

2007The Louisiana Supreme Court stated the following in Freeman v. Poulan/Weed Eater, 93-1530, pp. 4-5 (La.1/14/94) 630 So.2d 733 , 737-738: In a workers' compensation case, as in other cases, the appellate court's review is governed by the manifest error or clearly wrong standard.

2014In Alexandria v. Pellerin Marble & Granite, 93-1698, p. 1 (La.1/14/94), 630 So.2d 706, 710 , the supreme court re-affirmed Virgil and Shephard’s holding that the manifest error standard applied, even when documentary evidence is used, but then reversed a portion of the judgment of the hearing officer and appellate court, stating: We find that the court of appeal did not err by applying the manifest error standard of review.

2013In Alexander v. Pellerin Marble & Granite, 93-1698, p. 1 (La.1/14/94), 630 So.2d 706, 710 , the supreme court re-affirmed Virgil and Shephard’s holding that the manifest error standard applied, even when documentary evidence is used, but then reversed a portion of the judgment of the hearing officer and appellate |3court, stating: We find that the court of appeal did not err by applying the manifest error standard of review.

2020Carter v. Haygood, 2004- 0646 ( La. 1/ 19/ 05), 892 So. 2d 1261 , 1267- Generally, when evidence is introduced at the hearing on an exception of prescription, the trial court' s findings of fact on the issue of prescription are reviewed under the manifest error -clearly wrong standard of review.

2015Lin conjunction with the de novo review of legal questions, “[i]f evidence is introduced at the hearing on the peremptory exception of prescription, the district court’s findings of fact are reviewed under the manifest error-dearly wrong standard of review.” Carter v. Haygood, 04-0646, p. 9 (La.1/19/05), 892 So.2d 1261, 1267 .

2018Office of State Bldgs. , 12-1238, p. 10 (La. 4/5/13), 113 So.3d 175 , 184. *382 Because the determination of whether a defective thing presents an unreasonable risk of harm "encompasses an abundance of factual findings, which differ greatly from case to case, followed by an application of those facts to a less-than scientific standard, a reviewing court is in no better position to make the determination than the jury or trial court." [ Reed v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. , 97-1174, p.4 (La. 3/4/98, 3), 708 So.2d 362 , 364-365.] Accordingly, the fact-finder's unreasonable risk of harm determination i

2016Consider Reed v, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-1174, pp. 3-4 (La.3/4/98), 708 So.2d 362, 364 , holding that whether a thing creates an unreasonable risk of harm is a mixed question of law and fact and, thus, subject to the manifest error standard of review.

2026STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard of review of factual determinations is the manifest error-clearly rental wrong standard, which “precludes the setting aside of a trial court’s finding of fact unless that finding is clearly wrong in light of the record reviewed in its entirety.” Hayes Fund for First United Methodist Church of Welsh, LLC v. Kerr- McGee Rocky Mountain, LLC, 14-2592, p. 8 (La. 12/8/15), 193 So.3d 1110, 1115 .

2026Standard of Review “In all civil cases, the appropriate standard for appellate review of factual determinations is the manifest error-clearly wrong standard, which precludes the setting aside of a trial court’s finding of fact unless that finding is clearly wrong in light of the record reviewed in its entirety.” Hayes Fund for First United Methodist Church of Welsh, LLC v. Kerr-McGee Rocky Mountain, LLC, 14-2592, p. 8 (La. 12/8/15), 193 So.3d 1110, 1115 .

2025See Detraz v. Lee, 05- 1263, p. 9 (La. 1/17/07), 950 So. 2d 557, 563 (“the application of the ‘Housley presumption’ is a factual issue as is the determination of causation, both of which are subject to the manifest error standard of review.”).

2019"Under the manifest error/clearly wrong standard, a factual finding cannot be set aside unless, after reviewing the record, this Court finds that there is no reasonable factual basis for the finding." Id. (citing Smith v. Louisiana Dept. of Corrections , 93-1305 (La. 2/28/94), 633 So.2d 129 , 132 ).