DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Raziano v. TJ James & Co., 57 So. 2d 251.

16 citing documents.

  • Leger v. Louisiana Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries 306 So. 2d 391 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
    2 Cir. 1958); and Raziano v. T. J. James & Co., (La.App.Orl.
  • Schexnider v. Allstate Insurance Company 304 So. 2d 825 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1974
    453 (1936); Raziano v. T. J. James & Co.
  • Fall v. Manuel 228 So. 2d 494 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1969
    Raziano v. T. J. James & Co., (La.App.
  • Pitcher v. Audubon Insurance Co. 193 So. 2d 833 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
    The law in such a case is fully discussed in Raziano v. T. J. James and Co., La.App., , Parker v. Young, La.App., ; and very recently, by our brethren of the Third Circuit in Colomb v. McDonald, La.App., .” Let us now consider whether or not Mr. Callihan did in fact prove himself free from negligence.
  • Abshire v. Hoffpauir 169 So. 2d 740 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
    Raziano v. T. J. James & Co., La.App., ; (La.App.
  • Kupper v. Connolly 153 So. 2d 915 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
    The law in such a case is fully discussed in Raziano v. T. J. James & Co., La.App., , Parker v. Young, La.App., ; and very recently, by our brethren of the Third Circuit in Colomb v. McDonald, La.App., .
  • Kennedy v. Frierson 142 So. 2d 838 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1962
    173 ; Raziano v. T. J. James & Company, Inc. (La.App.Orleans, 1952), ; Stinson v. Robinson, et ux.
  • Colomb v. McDonald 131 So. 2d 84 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
    In the case of Raziano v. T. J. James & Company, Inc., La.App., , the Court stated: "Under the rules which emerged from the common law the owner of domestic animals possessed a duty which was absolute to keep them contained within his own premises and he was strictly liable for their trespass on another's land if he failed to do so.
  • Parker v. Young 122 So. 2d 699 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
    "In Raziano v. T. J. James & Company, La.App.1952, , we had occasion to review and discuss almost the identical question posed for our consideration by this case.
  • Sims v. Ainsworth 120 So. 2d 371 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
    Since it appears that the defendant was free from negligence, it follows that he cannot be held liable for damages; Harris v. Roy, La.App., ; Thomas v. Wright, La.App., ; Raziano v. T. J. James & Co., La.App., ; Willis v. Schuster, La.App., .
  • Briley v. Mitchell 115 So. 2d 851 La. 1959
    App., ; Raziano v. T. J. James & Co., Inc., La.App., , with numerous cases therein cited; Thomas v. Wright, La.App., .
  • Briley v. Mitchell 110 So. 2d 169 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
    We think it is also clear that there is at least an inferential distinction in the degree and basis of liability, dependent upon the type and character of animal which has caused the damage * * In Raziano v. T. J. James & Company, Inc., 1952, , our brother of the Orleans Court of Appeal,, Judge Regan, made this comment upon Article 2321: “It would, therefore, appear per se that Article 2321 would impose an absolute liability upon the owner of an animal, irrespective of the existence of any o
  • Harris v. Roy 108 So. 2d 7 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
    The law pertaining to the liability of an owner for damages caused by his animals is treated in a scholarly manner by Judge Regan, our brother on the Orleans Court of Appeal, in the case of Raziano v. T. J. James & Company, La.App.1952, .
  • Ansardi v. Potter 71 So. 2d 347 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1954
    In Raziano v. T. J. James & Company, La.App.1952, , 254 we had occasion to review and discuss almost the identical question- posed for our consideration by this case.
  • Alfred v. Lee 71 So. 2d 601 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
    art. 2321, which, in part, reads: “The owner of an animal is answerable for the damage he has caused * * As was stated in Raziano v. T. J. James & Co., Inc., La.App., , 254: “It would, therefore, appear per se that Article 2321 would impose an absolute liability upon the owner of an animal, irrespective of the existence of any ordinance; however, that article has been interpreted as subject 'to the negligence or fault requirements of Articles 2315 and 2316 of the Civil Code.
  • Stinson v. Robinson 68 So. 2d 806 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
    The late case of Raziano v. T. J. James & Co., Inc., La.App., , involves a situation very similar to the one under consideration here, in which an automobile collided with a mule.