DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Hauck v. Brunet, 50 So. 2d 495.

14 citing documents.

  • Murphy v. DeLatte 389 So. 2d 912 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    Civil Code Article 667, which was not affected by the 1977 revision of Title IV of Book II of the Civil Code, provides as follows: “Although a proprietor may do with his estate whatever he pleases, still he cannot make any work on it, which may deprive his neighbor of the liberty of enjoying his own, or which may be the cause of any damage to him.” (Orl.La.
  • Dean v. Hercules, Inc. 314 So. 2d 430 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
    "It is our opinion that the violation of the duty set out by Article 667 constitutes `fault' within the meaning of Article 2315, or as said in Hauck v. Brunet [La.App., ] supra `the damage itself to the neighboring property constituted fault.'
  • Lombard v. Sewerage & Water Board of New Orleans 284 So. 2d 905 La. 1973
    it would be very drastic to extend the doctrine of the Hauck v. Brunet case [Hauck v. Brunet, La.App., ] so as to include the Sewerage & Water Board, or the City of New Orleans, or any other political subdivision as a `neighbor' *914 within the contemplation of the quoted article of the Code.
  • D'Albora v. Tulane University 274 So. 2d 825 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1973
    art. 667 [1] without any showing of negligence on anyone's part; (La.App.
  • Burgess v. Travelers Insurance Co. 254 So. 2d 163 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
    See Selle v. Kleamenakis, La.App., (4th Cir. 1962); Bruno v. Employers’ Liability Assurance Corporation, La.App., (Orl.1953); and Hauck v. Brunet, La.App., (Orl.1951).
  • Bazanac v. State ex rel. Department of Highways 218 So. 2d 121 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
    “ ‘We agree with counsel for the Sewerage & Water Board that it would he very drastic to extend the doctrine of the Hauck v. Brunet case [La.App., ] so as to include the Sewerage & Water Board, or the City of New Orleans, or any other political subdivision as a “neighbor” within the contemplation of the quoted article of the Code.
  • Hamilton v. City of Shreveport 180 So. 2d 30 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1966
    Corp., La.App., (1965), that "* * * the violation of the duty set out by Article 667 constitutes `fault' within the meaning of Article 2315, or as said in Hauck v. Brunet supra [La.App., (1951)] `the damage itself to the neighboring property constituted fault'," and that "While negligence is an example of `fault' within the meaning of Article 2315, it is well settled that the obligation imposed upon proprietors by Article 667 is absolute and that proof of negligence is not required in order to r
  • Klein v. Department of Highways 175 So. 2d 454 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1965
    "We agree with counsel for the Sewerage & Water Board that it would be very drastic to extend the doctrine of the Hauck v. Brunet case [La.App., ] so as to include the Sewerage & Water Board, or the City of New Orleans, or any other political subdivision as a `neighbor' within the contemplation of the quoted article of the Code.
  • Gulf Insurance Co. v. Employers Liability Assur. Corp. 170 So. 2d 125 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1964
    Corp. Limited, La.App., ; Hauck v. Brunet, La.App., ).
  • Hamilton v. City of Shreveport 168 So. 2d 380 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
    491 and 668 in accord with Hauck v. Brunet, La.App., (Orl.1951).
  • Selle v. Kleamenakis 142 So. 2d 50 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
    Corp., La.App., ; Hauck v. Brunet, La.App., .
  • Town of Jackson v. Mounger Motors 98 So. 2d 697 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
    2d 920 ; Hauck v. Brunet, La.App., Orleans, , Noted, 26 Tul.Law Rev. 524, 6 Loyola Law.Rev.
  • Beck v. Boh Bros. Const. Co. 72 So. 2d 765 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
    *769 In support of this argument counsel for plaintiff cite Hauck v. Brunet, La.App., .
  • Bruno v. EMPLOYERS'LIABILITY ASSUR. CORP. 67 So. 2d 920 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
    In the case of Hauck v. Brunet, La.App., (writs refused), we held that it was unnecessary for the plaintiff, in order to recover from the owner, to adduce proof that the owner or his contractor either acted unlawfully or negligently in performing pile-driving work, and that liability for damages to the plaintiff's property flowed from the "good neighbor