Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Day v. National US Radiator Corporation, 128 So. 2d 660.

57 citing documents.

Isiah Cole Jr. and His Wife, Karen Cole v. New Orleans Emergency Medical Services, City of New Orleans, … La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2025
1992) ( So.2d 660, 10 665 (1961)).
Gustavo Bonilla v. Verges Rome Architects - a Professional Architectural Corporation, Pivotal Engineering LLC, Steven Hannah Rome and … La. 2024
Nijel Young Versus Hard Rock Construction, L.L.C., Hard Rock Construction of Louisiana, L.L.C., and All South Consulting Engineers, … La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2020
Maddox v. Howard Hughes Corp. 268 So. 3d 333 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
Day v. National U.S. Radiator Corp. , , , 665 (1961).
Maldonado v. Kiewit Louisiana Co. 152 So. 3d 909 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Linnear v. CENTERPOINT ENERGY ENTEX/RELIANT 966 So. 2d 36 La. 2007
Cooper v. Public Belt Railroad 886 So. 2d 531 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
Williamson v. ST. FRANCIS CABRINI HOSP. 763 So. 2d 50 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
Baxter v. Sonat Offshore Drilling, Inc. 734 So. 2d 901 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
[12] , (1961); Boudoin v. Crawford and Marshall, Ltd., 97-224, p. 28 (La.App.
Boudoin v. Crawford and Marshall, Ltd. 709 So. 2d 798 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
(1961); Picou v. Equifax Services, Inc., 96-819 (La.App.
Picou v. Equifax Services, Inc. 690 So. 2d 219 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
Thomas v. Medical Center of Southwest Louisiana 685 So. 2d 706 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
Yocum v. City of Minden 649 So. 2d 129 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
Spott v. Otis Elevator Co. 601 So. 2d 1355 La. 1992
Jones v. Gateway Realty, Inc. 550 So. 2d 388 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
in support of its contention that O'Rourke had a duty to plaintiff and breached that duty, thus causing her damages.
Walters v. Landis Construction Co. 522 So. 2d 1306 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
(1961), our Supreme Court discussed the duties of a consulting architect pursuant to its contract with the owner.
Am. Fid. Fire Ins. Co. v. Pavia-Byrne Engineering Corp. 393 So. 2d 830 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1981
(1961), the court recognized that if an architect had the duty to inspect and approve the installation (there a boiler without a safety pressure release valve), and his breach of this duty caused damage, he could have been held responsible in tort to the widow and children of a workman who was killed w
Holliday v. Peden 359 So. 2d 640 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
Sheppard v. Travelers Insurance Company 333 So. 2d 342 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
(1961); Langlinais v. Geophysical Service, Inc., 237 La.
Cousins v. Henry 332 So. 2d 506 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1976
Garrison v. Hotel Dieu 319 So. 2d 557 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1975
Town of Winnsboro v. Barnard & Burk, Inc. 294 So. 2d 867 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1974
85 , (1970); , (1961); Calandro Development, Inc. v. R. M. Butler Contr., Inc., (La.
Canter v. Koehring Company 283 So. 2d 716 La. 1973
This court inferentially, if not explicitly, , 128 So.
Spiers v. Lane 278 So. 2d 549 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
McCann v. Baton Rouge General Hospital 276 So. 2d 259 La. 1973
King v. King, supra; , (1961); Larkin v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins.
Sharon v. Connecticut Fire Insurance Co. 270 So. 2d 900 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
Vidrine v. Michigan Millers Mutual Insurance Co. 268 So. 2d 233 La. 1972
1st Cir., 1959), reversed on other grounds, , (1961); United Gas Co. v. Guillory, 206 F.2d 49 (5th Cir., 1953).
Griffin v. Seismic Services, Inc. 259 So. 2d 923 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
McCann v. Baton Rouge General Hospital 258 So. 2d 618 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
Larkin v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins.
Leake v. Prudhomme Truck Tank Service, Inc. 258 So. 2d 358 La. 1972
Travelers Insurance Co. v. Wilson 250 So. 2d 463 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
Costello v. Morrison Cafeteria Company of Louisiana, 18 La.App.
American Employers' Insurance Co. v. Fagot 250 So. 2d 842 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
Gerald v. Standard Oil Co. of Louisiana, 204 La.
Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Co. of NY 250 So. 2d 754 La. 1971
Woodall v. Kent Enterprises, Inc. 250 So. 2d 254 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
(1961), quoting 38 Am.Jur.
Calandro Development, Inc. v. RM Butler Contr., Inc. 249 So. 2d 254 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
Defendant Boudreaux, , , and J. B. Thomas v. Fromherz Engineers et al., La.App., , asserts that, according to Louisiana law, a surety is precluded from suing an architect.
Vidrine v. Michigan Millers Mutual Insurance Co. 242 So. 2d 249 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
1st Cir. 1959), reversed on other grounds, , ; United Gas Corporation v. Guillory, 206 F.2d 49 (5th Cir. 1953); General Electric Co. v. Cuban American Nickel Co., 396 F.2d 89 (5th Cir. 1968).
Robinson v. Muller 242 So. 2d 86 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
Lutheran Church of Good Shepherd v. Canfield 233 So. 2d 331 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
Manget v. Seidenberg 230 So. 2d 299 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
JC Trahan Drilling Contractor, Inc. v. Cockrell 225 So. 2d 599 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
Connecticut Fire Insurance v. Lavergne 224 So. 2d 479 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
(1961), our Supreme Court quoted with approval the following rule from 38 Am.Jur.
Maloney v. Oak Builders, Inc. 224 So. 2d 161 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1969
[11] , (1961), where the Supreme Court held in an analogous situation that architects have no duty to supervise the contractor's procedures and techniques in performing the work for which they contract.
King v. King 217 So. 2d 395 La. 1968
Larkin v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins.
Home Insurance Company v. AJ Warehouse, Inc. 210 So. 2d 544 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1968
-301 , , the Supreme Court in deciding this point referred to several authorities with approval, as follows: "The following is found in 38 Am.Jur.
Sims v. Gibson's of Denham Springs, Inc. 205 So. 2d 824 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
West v. Hydro-Test, Inc. 196 So. 2d 598 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
Gauthreaux v. Hogan 185 So. 2d 44 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1966
Gulf States Utilities Company v. Guidry 183 So. 2d 122 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
Geismar v. General Gas Corp. 182 So. 2d 769 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
In Day v. National United States Radiator Corporation (1961) , , the Supreme Court had this to' say about the doctrine' of res ipsa loquitur:: *779 “[1-3] As this court has often said, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is a rule of evidence, the applicability of which is to he determined in each case at the conclusion of the trial.
Muse v. WH Patterson & Company 182 So. 2d 665 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
Co. (1963) La.App., ; Day v. National United States Radiator Corp. (1961) , ; Hoyt v. Amerada Petroleum Corp. (1953) La.App., ; Adams v. Great American Indemnity Company (1959) .