Galiano v. Lucky Coin Machine Co.

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Galiano v. Lucky Coin Machine Co.

184 So. 3d 689, 2016 La. LEXIS 413, 2016 WL 282139

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedJanuary 8, 2016

DocketNo. 2015-C-2065

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 184 So. 3d 689 (Galiano v. Lucky Coin Machine Co.) 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

Galiano v. Lucky Coin Machine Co., 184 So. 3d 689, 2016 La. LEXIS 413, 2016 WL 282139 (La. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

In re Nunzio Galiano; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review Office of Workers’ Compensation, District 7, No. 14-01904; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 15-CA-101.

WRIT GRANTED; COURT OF APPEAL OPINION REVERSED; CASE REMANDED. It is well settled that under the manifest error standard of review, when there are two views of the evidence, the fact finder’s choice between them cannot be manifestly erroneous. Stobart v. State, Through Dept. of Transportation and Development, 617 So.2d 880 (La.1993). Moreover, 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. Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840 (La.1989). In this case it is clear that the appellate court had a different view of the evidence from the factfinder. However, the factfinders view was reasonably based on the testimony and credibility determinations and, therefore, should not have been found manifestly erroneous. Accordingly, the court of appeal decision is reversed and the case is remanded to the court of appeal to consider the defendant’s pretermitted assignment of error regarding penalties and attorney fees.

WEIMER, J., would request an opposition.

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

In re Nunzio Galiano; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review Office of Workers’ Compensation, District 7, No. 14-01904; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 15-CA-101.

WRIT GRANTED; COURT OF APPEAL OPINION REVERSED; CASE REMANDED. It is well settled that under the manifest error standard of review, when there are two views of the evidence, the fact finder’s choice between them cannot be manifestly erroneous. Stobart v. State, Through Dept. of Transportation and Development, 617 So.2d 880 (La.1993). Moreover, 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. Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840 (La.1989). In this case it is clear that the appellate court had a different view of the evidence from the factfinder. However, the factfinders view was reasonably based on the testimony and credibility determinations and, therefore, should not have been found manifestly erroneous. Accordingly, the court of appeal decision is reversed and the case is remanded to the court of appeal to consider the defendant’s pretermitted assignment of error regarding penalties and attorney fees.

WEIMER, J., would request an opposition.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

184 So. 3d 689, 2016 La. LEXIS 413, 2016 WL 282139, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/galiano-v-lucky-coin-machine-co-la-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack