Dwellingham v. Cooper

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Dwellingham v. Cooper

545 So. 2d 1046, 1989 La. LEXIS 1606, 1989 WL 65008

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedJune 16, 1989

DocketNo. 89-C-1170

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 545 So. 2d 1046 (Dwellingham v. Cooper) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dwellingham v. Cooper, 545 So. 2d 1046, 1989 La. LEXIS 1606, 1989 WL 65008 (La. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

In re Dwellingham, Harold; — Plaintiff(s); applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CA87-1350; Parish of Rapides, Alexandria City Court, No. 71,366.

Writ granted. Because plaintiffs testimony as to point of vehicle impact was corroborated by photographs and the police report, and defendant’s testimony on that issue was inconsistent with that evidence, the trial court had a reasonable factual basis for concluding that plaintiff’s version of the accident was more likely than not the correct version. Canter v. Koehring Co., 283 So.2d 716 (La.1973). Considering all of the evidence, we cannot say that the trial court’s finding that plaintiff proved defendant’s negligence by a preponderance of the evidence was clearly wrong. Therefore, the judgment of the court of appeal is reversed, and the judgment of the trial court is reinstated.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In re Dwellingham, Harold; — Plaintiff(s); applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CA87-1350; Parish of Rapides, Alexandria City Court, No. 71,366.

Writ granted. Because plaintiffs testimony as to point of vehicle impact was corroborated by photographs and the police report, and defendant’s testimony on that issue was inconsistent with that evidence, the trial court had a reasonable factual basis for concluding that plaintiff’s version of the accident was more likely than not the correct version. Canter v. Koehring Co., 283 So.2d 716 (La.1973). Considering all of the evidence, we cannot say that the trial court’s finding that plaintiff proved defendant’s negligence by a preponderance of the evidence was clearly wrong. Therefore, the judgment of the court of appeal is reversed, and the judgment of the trial court is reinstated.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

545 So. 2d 1046, 1989 La. LEXIS 1606, 1989 WL 65008, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dwellingham-v-cooper-la-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack