Legal Opinion · Dissent

In re K.L.H.

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Decided September 20, 2000No. 99-1995Published

1Dissent

hDOUCET, Chief Judge,

Dissenting:

For the following reasons, I respectfully disagree with the majority in this case.

*712First, I am reminded of the primary tenet of appellate review:

In applying the manifest error-clearly wrong standard, the appellate court must determine not whether the trier of fact was right or wrong, but whether the factfinder’s conclusion was a reasonable one. Freeman [v. Poulan/Weed Eater ], 93-1530 at p. 5 [ (La.1/14/94) ], 630 So.2d [733] at 737-738; Stobarb v. State, 617 So.2d 880, 882 (La.1993); Mart v. Hill, 505 So.2d 1120, 1127 (La.1987). Where there are two permissible…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Stobart v. State Through DOTDSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1993
  2. Arceneaux v. DomingueSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1978
  3. Mart v. HillSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1987
  4. Sistler v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1990
  5. Banks v. Indus. Roofing & Sheet MetalSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1997

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API