DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Meyer v. St. Paul-Mercury Indemnity Co., 73 So. 2d 781.

103 citing documents.

  • Detillier v. Groome 296 So. 2d 875 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
    Paul-Mercury Indemnity Co., , (1954).
  • Chapman v. Argonaut-Southwest Insurance Co. 290 So. 2d 779 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
    Paul Mercury Indemnity Co., , .
  • Busby v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company 290 So. 2d 701 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
    Paul-Mercury Indemnity Co., , at 786 (1954).
  • Brock v. Gunter 292 So. 2d 328 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1974
    PaulMercury and Indemnity Company, , (1953), as follows: "A physician, surgeon or dentist, according to the jurisprudence of this court and of the Louisiana Courts of Appeal, is not required to exercise the highest degree of skill and care possible.
  • Davis v. Southern Baptist Hospital 293 So. 2d 238 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
    Paul-Mercury Indemnity Co.
  • Wells v. Woman's Hospital Foundation 286 So. 2d 439 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
    App.1952), affirmed, , (1953); LeMay v. General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corporation, (1st La.App.1969), writ denied, 255 La.
  • Helms v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. 289 So. 2d 288 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1974
    Paul-Mercury Indemnity Co., , (1953) holding in essence that a physician, surgeon, or dentist has the duty to exercise the degree of skill ordinarily employed, under similar circumstances, by the members of his profession in good standing in the same community and to use reasonable care and diligence, along with his best judgment in
  • Fox v. Argonaut Southwest Insurance Company 288 So. 2d 102 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1974
    Paul Mercury-Indemnity Co., , (1953), the Supreme Court of this state recognized the rule that: "A physician, surgeon or dentist, according to the jurisprudence of this court and of the Louisiana Courts of Appeal, is not required to exercise the highest degree of skill and care possible.
  • Gage v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company 282 So. 2d 147 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1973
    Paul Mercury Indemnity Company, , (1953); Uter v. Bone & Joint Clinic, 249 La.
  • Alexander v. Alton Ochsner Medical Foundation 276 So. 2d 794 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1973
    Paul Mercury Indemnity Company, , .
  • McCann v. Baton Rouge General Hospital 276 So. 2d 259 La. 1973
    Paul-Mercury Indemnity Co., , (1954), the Court concluding that the "applicability of that rule was not of grave importance" in view of the facts.
  • Deshotel v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company 269 So. 2d 850 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1973
    Paul-Mercury Indemnity Co., , (1953).
  • Bryant v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co. 272 So. 2d 448 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1973
    Paul-Mercury Indemnity Company, , (1954), wherein it was held: "A physician, surgeon or dentist, according to the jurisprudence of this court and of the Louisiana Courts of Appeal, is not required to exercise the highest degree of skill and care possible.
  • Bush v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company 264 So. 2d 717 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
    Paul-Mercury Indemnity Company, , (1953), which states the rule as to the degree of care which must be exercised by medical practitioners: "A physician, surgeon or dentist, according to the jurisprudence of this court and of the Louisiana Courts of Appeal, is not required to exercise the highest degree of skill and care possible.
  • Carpenter v. Gauthier 266 So. 2d 504 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
    Paul-Mercury Indemnity Company, , (1954).
  • Butler v. Travelers Insurance Co. 264 So. 2d 756 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
    Paul—Mercury Indemnity Co., , (1953) as follows: "A physician, surgeon or dentist, according to the jurisprudence of this court and of the Louisiana Courts of Appeal, is not required to exercise the highest degree of skill and care possible.
  • Lauro v. Travelers Insurance Company 261 So. 2d 261 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1972
    Paul-Mercury Indemnity Co., , (1953); Steinberg v. Indemnity Insurance Company of North America, 364 F.2d 266 (5th Cir. 1966).
  • Dufrene v. Faget 260 So. 2d 76 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1972
    Paul-Mercury Indemnity Co., , (1954), sets forth the duty imposed upon physicians and dentists as follows: "A physician, surgeon or dentist, according to the jurisprudence of this court and of the Louisiana Courts of Appeal, is not required to exercise the highest degree of skill and care possible.
  • Miller v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 260 So. 2d 755 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
    Paul-Mercury Indemnity Company, , (1953); and an article by Justice Sanders entitled “Anatomy of Proof in Civil Actions”, 28 Louisiana Law Review 297 (1968).
  • Isom v. Page 257 So. 2d 720 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
    Paul-Mercury Indemnity Co., , (1954); Roark v. Peters, 162 La.
  • McCann v. Baton Rouge General Hospital 258 So. 2d 618 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
    Paul-Mercury Indemnity Co., , (1954), (La.App.
  • Ross v. Hatchette 251 So. 2d 820 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
    Paul-Mercury Indemnity Company, , (1953) as follows: “A physician, surgeon or dentist, according to the jurisprudence of this court and of the Louisiana Courts of Appeal, is not required to exercise the highest degree of skill and care possible.
  • Zachary v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. 249 So. 2d 273 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
    PaulMercury Indemnity Co., , (1954).
  • Sims v. Silvey 246 So. 2d 394 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
    Paul-Mercury Indemnity Co., , (1954); (1st La.App., 1969); and cases therein cited.
  • Thompson v. Brent 245 So. 2d 751 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1971
    (1953): "A physician, surgeon or dentist, according to the jurisprudence of this court and of the Louisiana Courts of Appeal, is not required to exercise the highest degree of skill and care possible.
  • Slack v. Fleet 242 So. 2d 650 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
    Paul-Mercury Indemnity Company, , (1954): `A physician, surgeon or dentist, according to the jurisprudence of this court and of the Louisiana Courts of Appeal, is not required to exercise the highest degree of skill and care possible.
  • Herbert v. Travelers Indemnity Company 239 So. 2d 367 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1970
    Paul-Mercury Indemnity Co., , (1954); (La.App.
  • Henry v. McCool 239 So. 2d 734 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
    Paul Mercury Indemnity Company, , , as follows: “A physician, surgeon or dentist, according to the jurisprudence of this court and of the Louisiana Courts of Appeal, is not required to exercise the highest degree of skill and care possible.
  • LeMay v. General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corp. 228 So. 2d 713 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
    Paul-Mercury Indemnity Co., , (1954).
  • Johnson v. St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company 219 So. 2d 524 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1969
    Paul, Minnesota, La.App., (Orleans App., 1952), affirmed at , (1953).
  • Thibodeaux v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Company 216 So. 2d 314 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1968
    Paul Mercury Indemnity Co., , (1953), and is as follows: "A physician, surgeon or dentist, according to the jurisprudence of this court and of the Louisiana Courts of Appeal, is not required to exercise the highest degree of skill and care possible.
  • Foster v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co. 212 So. 2d 729 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1968
    Paul-Mercury Indemnity Co., , (1954) and more recently reiterated in Uter v. Bone and Joint Clinic, 249 La.
  • Britt v. Travelers Indemnity Co. 205 So. 2d 880 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
    Paul-Mercury Indemnity Co., , (1954).
  • Folse v. Anderson 202 So. 2d 404 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
    Paul-Mercury Indemnity Co., , .
  • Langston v. St. Charles Hospital 202 So. 2d 386 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1967
    Paul-Mercury Indemnity Co., , (1953).
  • Stern v. Boyce 200 So. 2d 318 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
    Paul-Mercury Indemnity Co., , .
  • Herbert v. Travelers Indemnity Company 193 So. 2d 330 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1967
  • Uter v. Bone and Joint Clinic 192 So. 2d 100 La. 1966
  • Dyess v. Caraway 190 So. 2d 666 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1966
    (1953); La.App., (Orl.Cir.
  • Prack v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 187 So. 2d 170 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1966
    *177 Paul-Mercury Indemnity Co., , : "* * * [T]he law only exacts of physicians, surgeons and dentists that degree of skill and care which is usually possessed and exercised by practitioners of their profession in the same locality or community and makes it their duty to use reasonable care and diligence, along with their best judgment
  • Powell v. Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York 185 So. 2d 324 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
    Paul-Mercury Indemnity Company, , , as follows: "A physician, surgeon or dentist, according to the jurisprudence of this court and of the Louisiana Courts of Appeal, is not required to exercise the highest degree of skill and care possible.
  • Uter v. Bone & Joint Clinic 184 So. 2d 304 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
    Paul-Mercury Indemnity Company, , , which was decided by the Supreme Court of Louisiana in 1953 and has continued to be the law on that subject since that time.
  • Dowling v. Mutual Life Insurance Co. of New York 168 So. 2d 107 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1965
    Paul-Mercury Indemnity Co., , , in the following language: "* * * As a general rule it is his duty to exercise the degree of skill ordinarily employed, under similar circumstances, by the members of his profession in good standing in the same community or locality, and to use reasonable care and diligence, along with his best judgme
  • Osburn v. Saltz 169 So. 2d 687 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
    Paul, Minn. et al., , , on rehearing at page 786: "The rule makes it incumbent on the physician, surgeon or dentist who becomes defendant in a malpractice case to show that he is possessed of the required skill and competence indicated and that in applying that skill to the given case he used reasonable care and diligence al
  • Fontenot v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 166 So. 2d 299 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
    Paul-Mercury Indemnity Company, , , wherein it is set forth that in dealing with his patients it is the duty of a physician, surgeon or dentist to exercise that degree of skill ordinarily employed, under similar circumstances, by *301 the members of his own profession in good standing in the same community or locality and, in addition
  • Lindsey v. Michigan Mutual Liability Co. 156 So. 2d 313 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1963
    Paul-Mercury Indemnity Co., , (1954).
  • Norton v. Argonaut Insurance Company 144 So. 2d 249 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
    Paul-Mercury Indemnity Company, , : "(1) A physician, surgeon or dentist, according to the jurisprudence of this court and of the Louisiana Courts of Appeal, is not required to exercise the highest degree of skill and care possible.
  • Favalora v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company 144 So. 2d 544 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
    Paul-Mercury Indemnity Company, , , which states the duty of care owed by a physician to his patient to be as follows: "(1) A physician, surgeon or dentist, according to the jurisprudence of this court and of the Louisiana Courts of Appeal, is not required to exercise the highest degree of skill and care possible.
  • Jacobs v. Beck 141 So. 2d 920 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
    Paul-Mercury Indemnity Co., , .
  • Whyte v. American Motorists Insurance Co. 122 So. 2d 297 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
    Paul, Minn., et al., 1954, , ; Id., La.App., .