DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Gilliam v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company, 124 So. 2d 913.

37 citing documents.

  • Tate v. Touro Infirmary 245 So. 3d 1027 La. 2018
  • Stuckey v. Riverstone Residential SC, LP 21 So. 3d 970 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
  • Chau v. Takee Outee of Bourbon, Inc. 707 So. 2d 495 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
    Co., , (1960), quoted in, (La.App.
  • Hesse v. Champ Service Line 707 So. 2d 1295 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
  • Wallace v. Helmer Directional Drilling, Inc. 641 So. 2d 624 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
  • Guillory v. Foster 634 So. 2d 1372 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
    (1960) the Louisiana Supreme Court held that the statute "was undoubtedly designed to relieve the owner of some of the burdens imposed on him by law in cases where he has given dominion or control of his premises to a tenant under a lease, for the Act permits the owner to transfer his legal liabil
  • Hinton v. Hopkins 626 So. 2d 49 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
    (1960) (citations omitted).
  • Roberts v. Orpheum Corp. 610 So. 2d 1097 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
    4th Cir.1992) ( , (1960); (La.App.
  • Mendoza v. Seidenbach 598 So. 2d 404 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
  • Fontan v. Estopinal 529 So. 2d 1330 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
    Inasmuch as the jurisprudence has rejected this proposition relative to the statute, , (1960), we turn to a consideration of whether the lease imposes direct responsibility on MCC for the condition of the premises.
  • Slaughter v. Coleman 490 So. 2d 570 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
  • Garcia on Behalf of Garcia v. Jennings 427 So. 2d 1329 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
    (1960); Arata v. Orleans Capitol Stores, 219 La.
  • Landry v. Hazelwood & Santillo, Inc. 330 So. 2d 683 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    See Provost v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, La.App., ; Gilliam v. Lumbermen’s Muhial Casualty Company, , ; Vogts v. Schwegmann, La.App., .
  • Pence v. Ketchum 326 So. 2d 831 La. 1976
    (1960); Arata v. Orleans Capitol Stores, 219 La.
  • Barnes v. Pick 311 So. 2d 609 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1975
    (1960), the court concluded, in a suit against a landlord that knowledge alone of the defective conditions of the premises will not defeat the injured party's claim.
  • Wooten v. Wimberly 272 So. 2d 303 La. 1973
    Co., , (1960); Klein v. Young, 163 La.
  • Hudgens v. Gunn 267 So. 2d 771 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
    Gilliam v. Lumbermen’s Mutual Casualty Co., , ; Turner v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., cited above; Hill v. Travelers Insurance Co., La.App.
  • Wilson v. Virgademo 258 So. 2d 572 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1972
    (1960); Anslem v. Travelers Insurance Company, supra; Turner v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., (La.App.
  • Tewis v. Zurich Insurance 233 So. 2d 357 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
    Gray v. Succession of Spiro, La.App., ; , .
  • Hay v. SEARS ROEBUCK & COMPANY 224 So. 2d 496 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1969
  • Texas Gas Transmission Corporation v. Gagnard 223 So. 2d 233 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1969
    Co., , ; Johnson v. Aetna Insurance Co., La.App.3d Cir., , and decisions therein cited.
  • Johnson v. Aetna Insurance 219 So. 2d 563 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
    at page 915 (1960), our Supreme Court laid down the test to be applied in judging such an allegation.
  • Hanford v. Jan C. Uiterwyk Company 214 So. 2d 236 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1968
    Veal v. Employers Liability Assurance Corporation, La.App.
  • McDaniel v. Louisiana & Arkansas Railway Co. 194 So. 2d 119 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
    Article 1005, , ; Landrum v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. (La.App.
  • Anslem v. Travelers Ins. Co. 192 So. 2d 599 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1966
    Turner v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., cited above; Hill v. Travelers Insurance Co., La.App.
  • Willis v. Grain Dealers Mutual Insurance 185 So. 2d 912 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
    An exception to this rule is that the issue of contributory negligence may be raised by way of the peremptory exception of no cause of action, , , but the present case does not involve an exception of no cause of action.
  • Lee v. Peerless Insurance Company 183 So. 2d 328 La. 1966
    on other grounds, , ; Althans v. Toye Bros. Yellow Cab Co., La.App., 191 So.
  • Turner v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Company 175 So. 2d 304 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1965
    Appropriate to the facts of this case, as hereinabove detailed, , -916 (1960), wherein it was stated: "It has long been the jurisprudence that knowledge alone on the part of the injured party that the premises were in a defective condition will not defeat an action for damages against his landlord or the owner of the premises.
  • Lee v. Peerless Insurance Co. 175 So. 2d 381 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
    238 (1937); Gilliam v. Lumbermen’s Mutual Casualty Company, , (1960); Robinson v. Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York, La.App., (1st Cir. 1961 Cert.
  • Murphy v. Fidelity and Casualty Co. of New York 165 So. 2d 497 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1964
  • Distinguished Miller v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co. 164 So. 2d 676 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
    defendants are chargeable with negligence, refer us to five cases which have been decided by the appellate courts of this State, viz.: Dyer v. Stephens Buick Co., La.App., 4 Cir., ; Bowers v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company, La.App., 2 Cir., ; Richard v. General Fire and Casualty Company, La.App., 3 Cir., ; , ; and McMurray v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, La.App., 2 Cir., .
  • Jolly v. Travelers Ins. Co. 161 So. 2d 354 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1964
    Grayson v. American Brewing Co., La.App., ; , .
  • Landrum v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 151 So. 2d 701 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1963
    and the cases cited therein.
  • McMurray v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 141 So. 2d 898 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
    A recent pronouncement on this point is found in Gilliam v. Lumbermen’s Mutual Casualty Company, , .
  • Sabin v. C & L DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 141 So. 2d 482 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
    Gray v. Succession of Spiro, La.App., ; , .
  • Murphy v. Fidelity and Casualty Co. of New York 138 So. 2d 132 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1962
    the opinion of Mr. Justice McCaleb contained the following enunciation: "* * * for it is fundamental that the owner of a building cannot, by contract, escape his liability ex delicto under Articles 670, 2315 and 2322 of the Civil Code for damages to third persons for injuries sustained by reason of t
  • Robinson v. Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York 135 So. 2d 607 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
    Justice McCaleb as the organ of the Supreme Court, at page 915 (So.2d), opined—though the plea of contributory negligence in an ex delicto action is one which has to be made by the defendant specially in his answer, there is an exception to the rule where the petition itself affirmatively makes alleg