“Where there is conflict in the testimony, reasonable evaluations of credibility and reasonable inferences of fact should not be disturbed upon review.” (citation omitted)
How later courts described this case
- “Where there is conflict in the testimony, reasonable evaluations of credibility and reasonable inferences of fact should not be disturbed upon review.” (citation omitted)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*1012 WEIMER, J.
concurring.
|,I concur in the result and write separately to point out that I believe the majority opinion should not be construed to alter the long-standing principles that underlie application of the manifest error standard of review. Thus, while the majority correctly recognizes that where there are two reasonable explanations for an event, the one credited by the jury should not be disturbed on review, it remains equally true that “[wjhere documents or objective evidence so contradict the witness’s story, or the story itself is so internally inconsistent or implausible on its face, that a reasonable fact finder would not credit the witness’s story, the court of appeal may well find manifest error or clear wrongness even in a finding purportedly based on a credibility determination.” Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840, 844-845 (La.1989).