DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Perkins v. Entergy Corp., 782 So. 2d 606.

154 citing documents.

  • Thomas v. AP Green Industries, Inc. 933 So. 2d 843 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
    1 Cir. 4/2/04), (citing Perkins v. Entergy Corp., XXXX-XXXX, XXXX-XXXX, XXXX-XXXX, p. 7 (La.3/23/01), ).
  • Norfleet v. LIFEGUARD TRANSP. SERVICE, INC. 934 So. 2d 846 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
    Perkins v. Entergy Corp., 00-1372, p. 7 (La.3/23/01); .
  • Edward Trent, Jr. v. Ppg Industries, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    3/23/01), (citations omitted), the supreme court stated: The determination of liability under the duty/risk analysis usually requires proof of five separate elements: (1) proof that the defendant's substandard conduct was a cause-in-fact of the plaintiff’s injuries (the cause-in-fact element); (2) pro
  • Edward Trent, Jr. v. Ppg Industries, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    3/23/01), (citations omitted), the supreme court stated: The determination of liability under the duty/risk analysis usually requires proof of five separate elements: (1) proof that the defendant's substandard conduct was a cause-in-fact of the plaintiff’s injuries (the cause-in-fact element); (2) pro
  • Edward Trent, Jr. v. Ppg Industries, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    3/23/01), (citations omitted), the supreme court stated: The determination of liability under the duty/risk analysis usually requires proof of five separate elements: (1) proof that the defendant's substandard conduct was a cause-in-fact of the plaintiff’s injuries (the cause-in-fact element); (2) pro
  • Trent v. PPG Industries, Inc. 930 So. 2d 324 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    In Perkins v. Entergy Corp., 00-1372, 00-1387, 00-1440, p. 7 (La.3/23/01), (citations omitted), the supreme court stated: The determination of liability under the duty/risk analysis usually requires proof of five separate elements: (1) proof that the defendant's substandard conduct was a cause-in-fact of the plaintiff's injuries (the cause-in-fact element); (2) proof that the defendant'
  • Severn Place v. American Bldg. Services 930 So. 2d 125 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
    [2] Perkins v. Entergy Corp., 00-1372, 00-1387, 00-1440 (La.3/23/01), .
  • Lemann v. Essen Lane Daiquiris, Inc. 923 So. 2d 627 La. 2006
    1 Cir. 12/28/99), , aff'd, XXXX-XXXX, XXXX-XXXX, 00-1440 (La.3/23/01), .
  • Bujol v. Entergy Services, Inc. 922 So. 2d 1113 La. 2006
    00-1372, 00-1387, 00-1440 (La.3/23/01), .
  • Hanks v. Entergy Corp. 921 So. 2d 1130 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
    Perkins v. Entergy Corp., 00-1372 (La.3/23/01), .
  • Cobb v. Delta Exports, Inc. 918 So. 2d 1080 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    of New Orleans, 04-1058, p. 6 (La.12/1/04), , (citing, Perkins v. Entergy Corp., 00-1372 (La.3/23/01), ).
  • Johnny Leroy Cobb v. Delta Exports, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
  • Long v. STATE EX REL. DOTD 916 So. 2d 87 La. 2005
    Perkins v. Entergy Corp., 00-1372, (La.3/23/01), .
  • Kovac v. Spraymax, Inc. 911 So. 2d 934 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
    Perkins v. Entergy Corp., 2000-1372 (La.03/23/01), .
  • Gates v. Honey 909 So. 2d 1025 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
    Perkins v. Entergy Corp., 00-1372 (La.3/23/01), .
  • Long v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation & Development 916 So. 2d 87 La. 2005
    Perkins v. Entergy Corp., 00-1372, (La.3/23/01), .
  • Descant v. TPA, INC. 907 So. 2d 810 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
    [9] XXXX-XXXX (La.3/23/01), .
  • Hornsby v. Bayou Jack Logging 902 So. 2d 361 La. 2005
    Benjamin v. Housing Authority of New Orleans, 04-1058 (La.12/1/04), citing Perkins v. Entergy Corp., 00-1372 (La.3/23/01), .
  • Vargas v. Continental Cuisine, Inc. 900 So. 2d 208 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
    Perkins v. Entergy Corporation, XXXX-XXXX, p. 7 (La.3/23/01) .
  • Julie Guidry v. Coregis Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
  • Guidry v. Coregis Ins. Co. 896 So. 2d 164 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    [29] Perkins v. Entergy Corp., 00-1372 (La.3/23/01), .
  • Paul M. Arceneaux v. Roy De La Rosa La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
  • Arceneaux v. Rosa 889 So. 2d 383 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
    Perkins v. Entergy Corp., 00-1372 (La.3/23/01), .
  • Benjamin v. Housing Auth. of New Orleans 893 So. 2d 1 La. 2004
    Perkins v. Entergy Corp., 00-1372 (La.3/23/01), .
  • Hamilton v. City of Shreveport 896 So. 2d 76 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
    Perkins v. Entergy Corp., 00-1372, 00-1387, 00-1440 (La.3/23/01), .
  • Underwood v. Best Western Westbank, Inc. 881 So. 2d 1271 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
    Perkins v. Entergy Corp., 00-1372, p. 7 (La.3/23/01), .
  • Bonin v. Ferrellgas, Inc. 877 So. 2d 89 La. 2004
    Perkins v. Entergy Corp., 00-1372 (La.3/23/01), ; Boykin v. Louisiana Transit Co., Inc., 96-1932 (La.3/4/98), (citing David W. Robertson, et al., Cases and Materials on Torts, 83-84 (1989); (on original hearing)).
  • Scarbrough v. OK Guard Dogs 879 So. 2d 239 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
    Perkins v. Entergy Corp., 00-1372, p. 3 (La.3/23/01), .
  • Roberts v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. 878 So. 2d 631 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
    See Perkins v. Entergy Corp., 00-1372, 00-1387, 00-1440, p. 7 (La.3/23/01), .
  • Benjamin ex rel. Benjamin v. Housing Authority 871 So. 2d 1208 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
    Perkins v. Entergy Corp., 00-1372, 00-1387, 00-1440 (La.3/23/01), .
  • Young v. Fitzpatrick 865 So. 2d 969 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    In its opinion in Perkins v. Entergy Corp., 00-1372 (La.3/23/01), , the Louisiana Supreme Court provided the following overview of the various considerations involved in assessing whether a party is liable pursuant to the duty-risk analysis: The determination of liability under the duty/risk analysis usually requires proof of five separate elements: (1) proof that the defendant's su
  • Cornelia E. Young v. Kevin Fitzpatrick La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    3/23/01), the Louisiana Supreme Court provided the following overview of the various considerations involved in assessing whether a party is liable pursuant to the duty-risk analysis: The determination of liability under the duty/risk analysis usually requires proof of five separate elements: (1) proof that the
  • Bonin v. Ferrellgas, Inc. 855 So. 2d 781 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
    [29] Perkins v. Entergy Corp., 00-1372 (La.3/23/01); .
  • Cheatham v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 858 So. 2d 89 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    Some other cases in which the trial court’s factual calls were found to be manifestly erroneous were: Cole v. Department of Public Safety, 01-2123 (La.9/4/02), ; Perkins v. Entergy Corp., 00-1372 (La.3/23/01), ; Kelly v. Housing Authority of New Orleans, 02-0624 (La.App.
  • Conerly v. State 858 So. 2d 636 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    Perkins v. Entergy Corp., XXXX-XXXX, p. 7 (La.3/23/01), .
  • Cupit v. State 847 So. 2d 36 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
    Perkins v. Entergy Corp., 00-1372 (La.3/23/01), ; Methvin v. Ferguson, 35,138 (La.App.
  • Scott v. Dauterive Hosp. Corp. 851 So. 2d 1152 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
    In Perkins v. Entergy Corp., 00-1372, 00-1387, 00-1400 (La.3/23/01); , the Louisiana Supreme Court explained that the cause-in-fact element of the duty/risk analysis usually involves a "but for" inquiry.
  • Bujol v. Entergy Services, Inc. 833 So. 2d 947 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    1 Cir. 12/28/99) , , aff'd, XXXX-XXXX (La.3/23/2001), .
  • Henry v. Parish of Jefferson 835 So. 2d 912 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
  • Adams v. Traina 830 So. 2d 526 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
    Perkins v. Entergy Corp., 00-1372 (La.03/23/01), ; (La.App.
  • Ethyl Corp. v. Gulf States Utilities, Inc. 836 So. 2d 172 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    Perkins v. Entergy Corp., 00-1372 (La.3/23/01), .
  • Pillow v. Entergy Corp. 828 So. 2d 83 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
    1st Cir.12/28/99), , aff'd 00-1372 (La.3/23/01), .
  • Rachou v. Cornerstone Village Inc. 819 So. 2d 473 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
    Perkins v. Entergy Corp., 00-1372, 00-1387, 00-1440 p. 7 (La.3/23/01), .
  • Louviere v. Louviere 839 So. 2d 57 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    1 Cir. 12/28/99), , writs granted and judgment affirmed, XXXX-XXXX, 1387, 1440 (La.3/23/01), : Ease of Association: The legal cause issue in Sibley [v. Gifford Hill and Company], [La.1985], is very similar to the issue at hand.
  • Satterwhite v. Reilly 817 So. 2d 407 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
    Perkins v. Entergy Corp., 00-1372 (La.3/23/01), ; see also
  • Arcadian Corp. v. Olin Corp. 824 So. 2d 396 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
    In Perkins v. Entergy Corp., 00-1372, pp. 7-10 (La.3/23/01), -13 , the supreme court discussed cause-in-fact and the substantial factor test of the duty/risk analysis: Generally, the initial determination in the duty/risk analysis is cause-in-fact.
  • Pinsonneault v. Merchants & Farmers Bank & Trust Company 816 So. 2d 270 La. 2002
    1 Cir. 12/28/99), , aff'd, XXXX-XXXX, XXXX-XXXX, XXXX-XXXX, p. 7 (La.3/23/01), .
  • Thompson v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc. 812 So. 2d 829 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
    Perkins v. Entergy *832 Corp., 00-1372, p. 7 (La.3/23/01), .
  • Rosen v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation & Development 809 So. 2d 498 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    Perkins v. Entergy Corp., 00-1372 (La.3/23/01), .
  • Waters v. Coleman 803 So. 2d 249 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
    Perkins v. Entergy Corp., 2000-1372 (La.03/23/01), .