Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Dominguez v. American Casualty Co., 46 So. 2d 744.

24 citing documents.

Coleman v. United Fire & Casualty Insurance Co. 181 So. 3d 781 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
Mahaffey v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 679 So. 2d 129 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
(1950); Waits v. Indemnity Ins.
Panzico v. Price 647 So. 2d 1154 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
Norton v. Lewis 623 So. 2d 874 La. 1993
349 , (1949); , (1950); McConnell v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 248 La.
Perkins v. McDow 615 So. 2d 312 La. 1993
Hughes v. Southeastern Fidelity Ins. Co. 340 So. 2d 293 La. 1976
(1950); Waits v. Indemnity Ins.
Wolfe v. Employers Commercial Union Insurance Co. 272 So. 2d 714 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1973
Lusk v. Travelers Insurance Co. 250 So. 2d 197 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
(1950), the Supreme Court, while opining that the facts in the Waits case "concerning the lack of permission were stronger than exists here", followed the rationale of Parks and Waits in holding that the employee, who had used the truck for the purpose of pulling a fellow employee's truck out of the dit
American Home Assurance Co. v. Czarniecki 216 So. 2d 115 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
McConnell v. Travelers Indemnity Company 180 So. 2d 406 La. 1965
349 , (1949); , (1950); Gonzales v. Beaumont Cement Sales Co., La.App, (1961); *517 Miller, The Omnibus Clause, 15 Tulane Law Review 422, 425.
Primo v. Travelers Indemnity Co. 172 So. 2d 341 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1965
Scoggins v. Agricultural Insurance Company 161 So. 2d 438 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1964
Hampton v. Security Storage and Van Company 148 So. 2d 788 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
Coco v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 136 So. 2d 288 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
349 , ; , ; Stanley v. Cryer Drilling Company, 213 La.
Rogillio v. Cazedessus 127 So. 2d 734 La. 1961
Parks v. Hall, supra; , .
Gonzales v. Beaumont Cement Sales Company 125 So. 2d 785 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1961
2d 133 ; , ; Parks v. Hall, 189 La.
Thomas v. Peerless Insurance Company 121 So. 2d 593 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1960
349 , ; and Dominguez v. American Casualty Company et al., 1950, , .
Garland v. Audubon Insurance Company 119 So. 2d 530 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
349 , , , , our Supreme Court unequivocably held that there was coverage under the omnibus clause even when the employees authorized to drive the vehicles for specific purposes violated specific general instructions, not to remove the vehicles from their night-time parking places by removing same for persona
Brooks v. Delta Fire & Casualty Company 82 So. 2d 55 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
349 , , , , 747, our Supreme Court unequivocably held that there was coverage under the omnibus clause even when the employees authorized to drive the vehicles for specific purposes violated specific general instructions not to remove the vehicles from their night-time parking places by removing same for personal
Parker v. Great American Indemnity Company 81 So. 2d 79 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
Several cases, viz., , ; Waits v. Indemnity Ins.
Talbot v. Allstate Insurance Company 76 So. 2d 76 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1954
349 , ; Dominguez v. American Casualty Co., 1950, , 46 So.
Lavigne v. American Cas. Co. 51 So. 2d 408 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1951
On writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court, our decision was reversed, , , on the question of insurance coverage and scope of employment, and the case was remanded to this court for judgment on the factual issues involving plaintiff’s and defendants’ contentions of negligence and contributory negligence.
Dominguez v. American Casualty Co. 47 So. 2d 72 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1950
On April 24, 1950, the Supreme Court reversed our decision, , which reversal was only on the question of insurance coverage, and remanded the case to us for decision on the factual issues involving plaintiff’s and defendant’s contentions of negligence and contributory negligence.
Sun Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Standard Accident Ins. Co. 47 So. 2d 133 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1950
*138 Again, and very recently, the question was considered by the Supreme Court in Dominguez v. American Casualty Co., ___ La.___, , two Justices dissenting, one concurring and one being recused wherein the Court held the omnibus clause applicable.