DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Martin v. Brown, 124 So. 2d 904.

22 citing documents.

  • Reed v. Arthur 556 So. 2d 937 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
  • Hughes v. Flynn 489 So. 2d 1044 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
  • McCoy v. Chambers 403 So. 2d 838 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1981
  • Taylor v. Lumpkin 391 So. 2d 74 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
    (1961) the Supreme Court concluded that the owner of an automobile is not liable for damages caused while his automobile is being operated by a third person, with his knowledge and consent, unless he was present or the third person was his agent, servant, or employee, and was acting within the scope of
  • Smith v. Travelers Indem. Co. of Rhode Island 374 So. 2d 708 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
  • Downey v. Trahan 365 So. 2d 50 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
  • Distinguished Hill v. Benoit 358 So. 2d 326 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
  • Tandy v. Simoneaux 344 So. 2d 406 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
  • Hobbs v. Fireman's Fund American Insurance Companies 339 So. 2d 28 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
  • Vonner v. STATE EX REL. DEPT. OF PUBLIC WELFARE 273 So. 2d 252 La. 1973
  • Vonner v. State ex rel. Department of Public Welfare 258 So. 2d 93 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
    [876]; , ; Brantley v. Clarkson, 217 La.
  • Demoss v. Summers 257 So. 2d 164 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
    n 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.” Later, , (1960) the Supreme Court, in a suit against a husband, dismissed a petition which was devoid of an allegation that his
  • Gauthier v. Henry 255 So. 2d 378 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
    The rule in determining the husband’s , (1960) when the Supreme Court stated, “It is clear that since there is no right to proceed against the husband merely because of his relationship as such to the tortfeasor, a petition in a suit against a husband devoid of an allegation that his wife was on a mission for the community at the time of the
  • Employers Liability Assurance Corp. v. Carter 227 So. 2d 616 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
  • Pond v. Campbell 207 So. 2d 535 La. 1968
    (1960), we restated the rules for determining the husband’s liability as follows: “It is clear that since there is no right to proceed against a husband merely because of his relationship as such to the tort feasor, a petition in a suit against a husband devoid of an allegation that his wife was on a m
  • McCauley v. LaFleur 205 So. 2d 458 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
    259 , (1959) ; , (1960) ; (La.App.
  • Pond v. Campbell 198 So. 2d 700 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
  • Vidrine v. General Fire and Casualty Company 168 So. 2d 449 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1964
    See: , , Noted, 21 La.L.Rev.
  • Tuger v. Audubon Insurance 152 So. 2d 354 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
    Smith v. Borchers, La.App., ; 243 La.
  • Geyen v. Toussand 148 So. 2d 115 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
    Hart v. Hardgrave (La.App.
  • Gaspard v. Lemaire 146 So. 2d 467 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
  • Service Fire Insurance Company v. Johnson 138 So. 2d 410 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1962
    Insurance Co., La.App., ; , .