DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Brantley v. Clarkson, 46 So. 2d 614.

29 citing documents.

  • Smith v. Travelers Indem. Co. of Rhode Island 374 So. 2d 708 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    Brantley v. *713 Clarkson, , (1950); (La.App.
  • Downey v. Trahan 365 So. 2d 50 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
    259 , (1959), , (1950), and Martin v. Brown, 240 La.
  • Tandy v. Simoneaux 344 So. 2d 406 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
  • Reliance Insurance Company v. T. DICKENS 279 So. 2d 234 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1973
    (1950); Vail v. Spampinato, 238 La.
  • Williams v. Garner 268 So. 2d 56 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
  • Hamm v. Erwin 262 So. 2d 564 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1972
    259 , ; , ; Moreau v. Corley, La.App., ; McCauley v. La Fleur, La.App., .
  • Moore v. Johnson 262 So. 2d 105 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
  • Vonner v. State ex rel. Department of Public Welfare 258 So. 2d 93 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
    674 , ; , [45] [46] So.2d 614; Vail v. Spampinato, 238 La.
  • Demoss v. Summers 257 So. 2d 164 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
  • Gauthier v. Henry 255 So. 2d 378 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
    (1950): “We are unable to make the distinction between the purpose of the mission of the wife as was made in Adams v. Gol-son as long as she is using the automobile belonging to the community with the express or implied consent of the husband.
  • Smith v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York 244 So. 2d 675 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
    •425, ; LeDoux v. Montgomery, La.App., ; Fontenot v. Pan American Fire & Casualty Company, La.App., ; Huntsberry v. Millers Mutual Fire Insurance Co., La.
  • Moreau v. Corley 212 So. 2d 566 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1968
    Vail v. Sampinato, 238 La.
  • Overruled McCauley v. LaFleur 205 So. 2d 458 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
    The Adams case, however, was modified and, in effect, , (1950).
  • Dowden v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company 151 So. 2d 697 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1963
    "But later, , , while following the rationale of Adams v. Golson, that community liability is dependent on the agency of the wife, the court enlarged the scope of community activities by including therein the recreation and pleasure of the wife and it was held that where the wife, with the express or implied consent
  • Sepulvado v. General Fire & Casualty Company 146 So. 2d 428 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1962
  • Emmco Insurance v. Folse 144 So. 2d 498 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
    Certiorari was not applied for to the Supreme Court, , , decided April 1950.
  • Galle v. Ingraham 140 So. 2d 741 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
    Certiorari was not applied for to the Supreme Court, , , decided April 1950.
  • Hardware Mutual Casualty Co. v. Perez 128 So. 2d 703 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
    Brantley v. Clarkson, 1950, , .
  • Martin v. Brown 124 So. 2d 904 La. 1960
    this Court approved the law as announced in the Golson case as to instances where the husband could be held liable for the torts of his wife, but thought the application of the law to the facts of the case had been “too restricted,” 3 and adopted a more liberal rule, i. e., that where the wife is enga
  • Vail v. Spampinato 115 So. 2d 343 La. 1959
    42S, , while following the rationale of Adams v. Golson, that community liability is dependent cn the agency of the wife, the court enlarged the scope of community activities by including therein the recreation and pleasure of the wife and it was held that where the wife, with the express or implied consent of her husband
  • Vail v. Spampinato 108 So. 2d 262 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
    band, in using a car belonging to the community, commits a tort while on an errand in which he is to indulge in his own pleasures and recreation and thereby becomes liable, there is no reason which suggests itself why the same community, out of which the liability may have to be paid, should not likewise be liable for a tort committed by the wife under the same circumstances.” (Emphasis supplied) , .
  • Bryant v. Parr 86 So. 2d 115 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
    Paderas v. Stauffer, 10 La.App.
  • Ellis v. White 73 So. 2d 610 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
    Alpaugh v. Krajcer, La.App., .
  • Ellis v. White 71 So. 2d 640 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
    Alpaugh v. Krajcer, La.App., ; , ; and Shipp v. Ferguson, La.App., .
  • Howard v. Toye Bros. Yellow Cab Co. 70 So. 2d 465 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
    • , , that result would now be countenanced by our Supreme Court for we" think' that in that decision, in which the.
  • McDowell v. National Sur. Corp. 68 So. 2d 189 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
  • Shipp v. Ferguson 61 So. 2d 531 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1952
    has destroyed that defense also.
  • Baton Rouge Yellow Cab Co. v. Bourgeois 57 So. 2d 795 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1952
    As to whether or not this negligence can be imputed to her husband, , , would seem to contain the answer to this question.
  • Alpaugh v. Krajcer 57 So. 2d 700 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1952
    may be found the latest expression of the Supreme Court on this question: "* * * The wife is entitled to her own recreation, enjoyment and pleasures as well as the husband and the community owes her those things in the same manner as it owes her the food or the clothes she requires.