Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Dorman v. T. Smith & Son, Inc., 64 So. 2d 833.

18 citing documents.

Elkins v. Key 702 So. 2d 57 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
788 , (1954); Dorman v. T. Smith & Son, , (1953); (La.App.
Shahine v. State Univ. Med. Center 680 So. 2d 1352 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
788 , (1954); Dorman v. T. Smith & Son, , (1953); (La.App.
Novak v. Texada, Miller, Masterson and Davis Clinic 514 So. 2d 524 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
788 , (1954); Dorman v. T. Smith & Son, , (1953); (La.App.
Morgan v. Willis-Knighton Medical Center 456 So. 2d 650 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
788 , (1954); Dorman v. T. Smith & Son, , (1953); (La.App.
Alexander v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. 312 So. 2d 139 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
Dorman v. T. Smith & Son, , ; Murphy Corporation v. Petrochem Maintenance, Inc., et al., La.
McInnis v. Fireman's Fund Insurance 312 So. 2d 184 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
Dorman v. T. Smith & Son, , (1953); Geeck v. Garrard-Milner Chevrolet, Inc., (La.App.
Sharrett v. Fontcuberta 246 So. 2d 867 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
The rule is further discussed by the Supreme Court in Dorman v. T. Smith & Son, *871 , (1953) referring to its earlier decision in Morales v. Employers’ Liability Assur.
Geeck v. Garrard-Milner Chevrolet, Inc. 243 So. 2d 294 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
The rule may be found in Dorman v. T. Smith & Son, , (1953) wherein the Supreme Court stated: “ ‘ * * * in order for the rule to apply, it must be shown that the circumstances attending the accident were such as to create inference of negligence on the part of defendant’s employee, that the control and management of the instrumentality was exclusively ves
Moak v. Link-Belt Company 229 So. 2d 395 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1970
755 , (1943); Dorman v. T. Smith & Son, , (1953).
JC Trahan Drilling Contractor, Inc. v. Cockrell 225 So. 2d 599 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
Dorman v. T. Smith & Son, , .
Eversmeyer v. Chrysler Corporation 192 So. 2d 845 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1966
585 , ; Dorman v. T. Smith & Son, Inc., , .)
Murphy Corporation v. Petrochem Maintenance, Inc. 180 So. 2d 716 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
Dorman v. T. Smith & Son, , .
Tarbox v. Eason 179 So. 2d 916 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
Dorman v. T. Smith & Son, Inc., , ; Meyerer v. S. H. Kress & Co., La.App., ; Jones v. Shell Petroleum Corp., 185 La.
Bauer v. Columbia Casualty Company 126 So. 2d 398 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1960
Dorman v. T. Smith & Son, Inc., , ; Morales v. Employers' Liability Assur.
Thomas v. Buquet & Le Blanc, Inc. 119 So. 2d 129 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
The jurisprudence reflects as follows: In the case of Dorman v. T. Smith & Son, Inc., 1953, , , at page 835, our Supreme Court set forth the rule relative to the applicability of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.
Shields v. United Gas Pipe Line Company 110 So. 2d 881 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1959
Dorman v. T. Smith & Son, Inc., , ; Meyerer v. S. H. Kress & Co., La.App., ; Jones v. Shell Petroleum Corp., 185 La.
Larkin v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 97 So. 2d 389 La. 1957
See, also, Dorman v. T. Smith & Son, , .
Arrington v. Hearin Tank Lines 80 So. 2d 167 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1955
477, 478 , and Dorman v. T. Smith & Son, Inc., 1953, , .