DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Pepper v. Triplet, 864 So. 2d 181.

54 citing documents.

  • William Duckworth and Donnie Kaglear v. Susan Curole La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2024
  • Vernon J. Tatum, Jr. v. William Peoples and Catina Peoples and Xyz Insurance Companies La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2024
  • Betty Jurado Versus Elizabeth Phillips La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2024
  • Andrew Johnson and Rhonda Johnson v. Anthony Battise and Angela Battise La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2023
    1/21/04), noting that “Our courts of appeal, as well as various commentators, have noted that the 1996 revision results in an ordinary negligence standard for owners of animals, except dogs” and citing Frank L. Maraist and Thomas C. Galligan, LOUISIANA TORT LAW, § 14-7 (1996)).
  • Hidden Grove, Llc v. Richard A. Brauns And Leslie Brauns La. 2023
    1/21/04), (trespasser is “one who goes upon the property of another without the other’s consent”) (emphasis added).
  • Theodule P. Noel, Jr. v. Theodule P. Noel, Sr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
  • Hidden Grove, LLC v. Richard A. Brauns and Leslie Brauns La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
    A trespasser is “one who goes upon the property of another without the other’s consent.” Pepper v. Triplet, 03-619 (La.1/21/04), (quoting Williams v. J. B. Levert Land Co., 8 Inc., (La.App.
  • Ashlyn Franks, Individually and on Behalf of Her Minor Child, Addison Franks v. Joshua Sikes and Louisiana Farm … La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2021
  • Sushma Kshirsagar and Deelip Kshirsagar v. State Farm Insurance Co., Carol Perez and Daniel G. Perez, Jr. La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2020
    1/21/04), Odom v. Fair, 49,274 (La.
  • Kathleen Stuckey v. Republic Fire and Casualty Insurance Company and Roberto Brumen La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2020
  • Agrifund, LLC v. Radar Ridge Planting Co., Inc. and Thomas A. Dickerson La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2019
    1/21/04), (“the primary difference between ordinary negligence and strict liability is that, with the 1 latter, the plaintiff need not prove the defendant’s actual or constructive knowledge…”).
  • Ferguson v. Am. Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co. 273 So. 3d 406 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
    1/21/04), , 198 (neighbor was not strictly liable for injuries sustained by a trespasser who was bitten by the neighbor's dog while in the neighbor's back yard), with Thibodeaux v. Krouse , 2007-2557, p.6 (La.
  • Kasem v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 212 So. 3d 6 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
  • Marie M. Coburn v. Janis Dixon La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
    1/21/04), stated: [T]he plaintiff, in order to establish a claim in strict liability, [must] show that the risk of injury outweighed the dog’s utility such that it posed an unreasonable risk of harm.
  • Coburn v. Dixon 190 So. 3d 816 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    In order to establish the strict liability of a dog owner, the supreme court in Pepper v. Triplet, 03-619, p. 19 (La.1/21/04), , stated: [T]he plaintiff, in order to establish a claim in strict liability, [must] show that the risk of injury outweighed the dog’s utility such that it'posed an unreasonable risk of harm.
  • Demetrious R. Frazier v. Luke A. Difulco, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
  • Ducote v. Boleware 216 So. 3d 934 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    339, 353 (1996) (hereinafter “Burying Cea sar”); Pepper v. Triplet, 03-0619, p. 13 (La.1/21/04), (noting that “the standard for owners of animals other than dogs is ordinary negligence” and citing Frank L. Maraist and Thomas C. Galligan, LOUISIANA TORT LAW, § 14-7 (1996) (hereinafter “Maraist & Galligan”); and Joseph F. Piacun, Comment, The Abolition of Strict Liability in IsLouisiana: A Return to a Fair
  • Pattridge v. Starks 149 So. 3d 820 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
    Pepper v. Triplet, 2003-0619 (La.1/21/04), .
  • Odom v. Fair 147 So. 3d 1215 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
    Pepper v. Triplet, 2003-0619 (La.1/21/04), ; McBride v. XYZ Ins.
  • Theresa St. Julien v. Julie Walters Landry La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
    The most recent case of our supreme court is Pepper v. Triplet, 03- 619 (La.1/21/04)
  • Julien v. Landry 94 So. 3d 976 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    The most recent case of our supreme court is Pepper v. Triplet, 03-619 (La.1/21/04), .
  • Louisiana Workers' Compensation Corp. v. Landry 92 So. 3d 1018 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    Pepper v. Triplet, 2003-0619 (La.1/21/04), .
  • Boye v. Daiquiris & Creams No. 3, Inc. 80 So. 3d 505 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
  • Williams v. Galofaro 79 So. 3d 1068 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    In the case of Pepper v. Triplet, 2003-0619 (La.1/21/04), , the Louisiana Supreme Court reviewed the history of Article 2321 and significant jurisprudence interpreting its provisions.
  • Bourquard v. L.O. Ausauma Enterprises, Inc. 52 So. 3d 248 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    A trespasser is “ ‘one who goes upon the property of another without the other’s consent.’ ” Pepper v. Triplet, 03-619, p. 23, (La.1/21/04), , quoting Williams v. J.B.
  • Smegal v. Gettys 48 So. 3d 431 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    In the case of Pepper v. Triplet, 03-0619 (La.1/21/04), , the Louisiana Supreme Court reviewed the history of Article 2321 and significant jurisprudence interpreting its provisions.
  • Everett v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Insurance Co. 37 So. 3d 456 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    In the recent case of Pepper v. Triplet, 2003-0619 (La.1/21/04), , the Louisiana Supreme Court performed a textual analysis of Article 2321, the seminal case that abrogated the “first bite free” negligence analysis and adopted a strict liability theory in animal cases.
  • MILLIEN v. Jackson 30 So. 3d 167 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    Dupree v. City of New Orleans, 99-3651 (La.8/31/00), ; Pepper v. Triplet, 03-0619 (La.1/21/04), .
  • Wade P. Richard v. Daniel G. Richard La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
    1/21/04), (citations omitted).
  • Richard v. Richard 24 So. 3d 292 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    A trespasser has been defined as “one who goes upon the property of another without the other’s consent.” Pepper v. Triplet, 03-619 (La.1/21/04), (citations omitted).
  • Gonzales v. Kissner 24 So. 3d 214 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    The Louisiana Supreme Court, in discussing the effect of the legislative revisions, noted in Pepper v. Triplet, 03-0619, p. 1 (La.1/21/04), , 184: While the legislature may have generally eliminated strict liability for owners of animals, it specifically continued strict liability for owners of dogs.
  • Johnson v. Hackley 11 So. 3d 1242 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
  • Jean B. Richard, Jr. v. Anna Thibodeaux La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    Dupree v. City of New Orleans, 99-3651 (La.8/31/00), Pepper v. Triplet, 03-0619 (La.1/21/04)
  • Holland v. Teague 996 So. 2d 325 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
    The most recent case of our supreme court is Pepper v. Triplet, 03-0619 (La.1/21/04), .
  • Thibodeaux v. Krouse 991 So. 2d 1126 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
    In addressing the requirements of establishing liability under this article, the Louisiana Supreme Court in Pepper v. Triplet, 03-0619, pp. 1-2 (La.1/21/04), , held: [T]o establish a claim in strict liability against a dog owner under La.
  • Burmaster v. Plaquemines Parish Government 982 So. 2d 795 La. 2008
  • Windham v. Murray 960 So. 2d 328 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2007
    In Pepper v. Triplet, 03-0619, p. 29 (La.1/21/04), , the Louisiana Supreme Court examined the standard set forth in Civil Code article 2321 and held that in order to establish a claim in strict liability against a dog owner, a plaintiff must prove that (1) he or she sustained injury to his person or property; (2) the injuries could have been prevented by the owne
  • McCoy v. Liberty Mut. Life Ins. Co. 956 So. 2d 802 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
    Dupree v. City of New Orleans, 99-3651 (La.8/31/00), ; Pepper v. Triplet, 03-0619 (La.1/21/04), .
  • Darby v. SENTRY INS. AUTO. MUT. CO. 960 So. 2d 226 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
    Pepper v. Triplet, XXXX-XXXX (La.1/21/04), .
  • Darby v. Sentry Insurance Automobile Mutual Co. 960 So. 2d 226 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
    resulting injuries.” The Supreme Court has stated, “[cjourts should give effect to,all parts of a statute and should not give a statute an interpretation that makes any part superfluous or meaningless if that result can be avoided.” Pepper v. Triplet, 2003-0619 (La.1/21/04), .
  • Becker v. Keasler 950 So. 2d 92 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2007
    The trial court noted the applicability of the Louisiana Supreme Court decision Pepper v. Triplet, 03-0619 (La.1/21/04), , and specifically found that it was uncontested that Keasler's dog bit Becker; that the dog bite was unprovoked; and that the height and design of the fence and the rope were inadequate to restrain a dog as large as Keasler's.
  • McBride v. XYZ Insurance 935 So. 2d 326 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
    In the recent case of Pepper v. Triplet, 2003-0619 (La.1/21/04), , the court performed a textual analysis of art. 2321, the seminal case which abrogated the “first bite free” negligence analysis and adopted a strict liability theory.
  • Accardo v. LOUISIANA HEALTH SERV. & INDEM. 943 So. 2d 381 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
    Pepper v. Triplet, XXXX-XXXX (La.1/21/04), .
  • Bonner v. Martino 927 So. 2d 564 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
    Pepper v. Triplet, 03-0619 (La.1/21/04), , Andrus v. L.A.D.
  • Newcomer v. American Home Assurance Co. 921 So. 2d 1012 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
    See Pepper v. Triplet, 03-0619, pp. 17-18 (La.1/21/04); -94 .
  • Nelson v. Lakey 917 So. 2d 678 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
    Pepper v. Triplet, XXXX-XXXX (La.01/21/04), .
  • Lam Ex Rel. Lam v. State Farm Auto. Ins. 901 So. 2d 559 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
    Pepper v. Triplet, XXXX-XXXX (La.1/21/04), citing, Davis v. Witt, XXXX-XXXX (La.7/2/03), .
  • Schexnayder v. Entergy Louisiana, Inc. 899 So. 2d 107 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
    App 3 Cir. 6/2/04), , writ denied 04-1663 (La.10/8/04), ; Pepper v. Triplet, 03-0619 (La.1/21/04), .
  • Terral v. LOUISIANA FARM BUREAU CAS. INS. 892 So. 2d 732 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
    Pepper v. Triplet, XXXX-XXXX (La.1/21/04), .
  • Honeycutt v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. 890 So. 2d 756 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
    Pepper v. Triplet, XXXX-XXXX (La.1/21/04), .