DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Kendrick v. Mason, 99 So. 2d 108.

65 citing documents.

  • Hospital Service Dist. No. 1 v. Delta Gas, Inc. 171 So. 2d 293 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1965
    Poynter v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York, La.App., ; Thibodeaux v. Parks Equipment Co., La.
  • Taylor Con. & Sup. Co. v. American Mut. Liabil. Ins. Co. 163 So. 2d 450 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1964
    Wolf v. LeVasseur-Hinson Construction Company, La.App., (2nd Cir. 1962); , (1958); King v. Mason, 234 La.
  • Diez v. Accident Indemnity Insurance 162 So. 2d 206 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
  • Glass v. Flowers 149 So. 2d 747 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
    and King v. Mason, La.App., , in support of the contention that the accident in question was covered by the insurance policy.
  • Hospital Service District No. 1 of the Parish of Plaquemines v. Delta Gas, Inc. 141 So. 2d 925 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
  • Distinguished Poynter v. Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York 140 So. 2d 42 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1962
    Counsel for defendant contends that the instant case is distinguishable from the Swillie case, supra, where the insured was a machine shop operator, , , where the insured was a contractor, because in both of the cited cases the insured handled no products, whereas in the instant case the business of the insured is described as a "Trailer Accessories Shop" which, defendant contends, denotes the fact that the plaintiff was handling products.
  • Thibodeaux v. Parks Equipment Company 140 So. 2d 215 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
    the Supreme Court of this State said, at page 116 of 99 So.2d: *219 "We are constrained to conclude that the liability exclusion provisions of the policy herein issued by the defendant to Mason are inapplicable herein for the reason that Mason handled no products but was engaged solely as a contractor
  • Swillie v. General Motors Corporation 133 So. 2d 813 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
    manufacture of the double loadster was a separate and distinct operation from the installation of the double loadster and brake lines and the evidence is clear that it was during the installation that the defective flare was placed on this truck by employees of Natchez Steel Products Company, Inc. Having reached this factual conclusion, it is our opinion that the case of Kendrick v. Mason, 1958, , , is controlling here.
  • Foreman v. Jordan 131 So. 2d 796 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
    Co., 7 Cir., 1950, 184 F.2d 609 (damage to glass windows by strong solution used to clean exterior of building); , (natural gas pipe was punctured which caused an explosion); O'Toole v. Empire Motors, Inc., 1935, 181 Wash.
  • Green v. National Bellas Hess Life Insurance Co. 124 So. 2d 397 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1960
    522 , ; Kendrick v. Mason et al., 1958, , ; Schonberg v. New York Life Insurance Company, 1958, 235 La.
  • Marine Insurance Co. v. Strecker 124 So. 2d 141 La. 1960
  • Sumrall v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Company 124 So. 2d 168 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1960
    1901, 1945, 1946; , ; Albritton et al. v. Fireman's Fund Ins.
  • Velotta v. Western Fire Insurance 121 So. 2d 857 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
    Albritton et al. v. Fireman’s Fund Ins.
  • Marine Insurance Company v. Strecker 100 So. 2d 493 La. 1958
  • King v. Mason 99 So. 2d 117 La. 1958
    On application of the United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company we granted writs in this case addressed to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, , .