DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Dumas v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, 134 So. 2d 45.

31 citing documents.

  • Roxana Carroll as Survivor of Her Spouse, Richard Carroll Versus Progressive Secuirty Insurance Company and Gerado Navarro La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2024
  • Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC v. Texas Brine Company, LLC La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2022
    Legacy Vulcan further cites to Dumas v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., ( La.
  • Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC v. Texas Brine Company, LLC La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2022
    Legacy Vulcan further cites to Dumas v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., ( La.
  • Lettie Caruso v. Rodney Wooten And Arch Insurance Company La. 2020
    7/5/94), Dumas v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., (1961); Ruiz v. Clancy, 182 La.
  • Goers v. Mayfield 195 So. 3d 1 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
  • Watkins v. Exxon Mobil Corp. 145 So. 3d 237 La. 2014
    See Guidry v. Theriot, 377 So.2d at 322-25; see also Johnson, supra, pp. 21-23; see also, e.g., Dumas v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., , (1961) (holding the survival action abated at the death of the beneficiary).
  • Mary Phyllis Soileau v. Smith True Value and Rental La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
  • Soileau v. Smith True Value & Rental 95 So. 3d 1214 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
  • Marsh Engineering, Inc. v. Ernest L. Parker La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
  • Marsh Engineering Inc. v. Parker 883 So. 2d 1119 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
  • Breaux v. Avondale Industries, Inc. 842 So. 2d 1115 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
    385 , (1954), overruled on other grounds, Dumas v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., , (1961).
  • Descant v. Adm'rs of Tulane Educ. Fund 639 So. 2d 246 La. 1994
    Dumas v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., , (1961); Ruiz v. Clancy, 182 La.
  • Descant v. Administrators of the Tulane Educational Fund 627 So. 2d 214 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
    Dumas v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Company, , (1961).
  • Doughty v. Insured Lloyds Ins. Co. 576 So. 2d 461 La. 1991
    1981); Dumas v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., , (1961).
  • Doughty v. Insured Lloyds Insurance Co. 563 So. 2d 1233 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
    1981), the Supreme Court, relying on Dumas v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, , (1961), stated the principle that a parent cannot recover in a survival action, against his own liability insurer, any damages attributable to the parent’s own fault in causing the child’s death.
  • Lewis v. Till 395 So. 2d 737 La. 1981
    Dumas v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, , (1961).
  • Carter v. Salter 351 So. 2d 312 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
    Compare Dumas v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, , (1961) and Dickerson v. Illinois Cent.
  • Stelly v. Montgomery 347 So. 2d 1145 La. 1977
    Co., supra ; , (1961); 26 La.L.Rev.
  • Moore v. Kinney 315 So. 2d 340 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
    Dumas v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, , (1961); Austrum v. City of Baton Rouge, 282 So.
  • Breitenbach v. Green 186 So. 2d 712 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1966
    Co., , (1961); Payne v. Georgetown Lumber Co., 117 La.
  • Howard v. Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York 179 So. 2d 522 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1965
    When Mr. Howard was impleaded by his children to assert whatever claims he might have, he did not assert any against Employers, his own insurer (no doubt recognizing that he could not recover damages caused by his own negligence from his own liability insurer, Dumas v. U. S. F. & G. Co., , ); and such insurer is protected against further claim by Mr. Howard against it by Mr. Howard's impleader in this suit.
  • Smith v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance 174 So. 2d 122 La. 1965
    on is in valid existence during marriage; the injured spouse is the obligee or creditor ■of that cause of action while the spouse whose duty it is to repair the damage is the obligor or debtor; but it cannot be asserted as the law affords no appropriate remedy, or right of action, in such circumstances against the tort-feasor-spouse personally.” Dumas v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., , (1961).
  • Smith v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Ins. Co. 174 So. 2d 122 La. 1965
    Dumas v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., , (1961).
  • Futch v. Fidelity & Casualty Company 166 So. 2d 274 La. 1964
    To buttress this position, counsel rely in the main on four cases— viz., Dumas v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, , ; Addison v. Employers Mut.
  • Gross v. Hartline 144 So. 2d 424 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
  • Adams v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. 142 So. 2d 535 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1962
    Co. of Wis., La.App., (1953), and Dumas v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, , (1961), the exception of no cause of action must be maintained.
  • Blanke v. Chisesi 142 So. 2d 45 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
    ( , ) None of those cases is in point here because in each one of them the person injured by the tortious act of another filed the suit and died before judgment.
  • Gonzales v. Succession of Medica 141 So. 2d 887 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
    Prior to the amendment, as held in Dumas v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, , (1961), wherein the rights of the respective parties arose prior to the 1960 amendment to Article 2315, it was only where the right of action of the decedent had become merged into a judgment that it lost its classification as a right of action and became a property right which was inherited by the heir
  • Gunter v. Lord 140 So. 2d 11 La. 1962
    aid to him pursuant to the insurer’s contractual liability for medical expenses under a separate insuring agreement for which a premium is also charged.” (b) Dumas v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., La.App., (Third Circuit, 1960), , to the same effect; but this case was annulled and reversed, and suit dismissed, on other grounds, without consideration of the issue at hand, , ; (e) Constantin v. Bankers Fire & Marine Insurance Co., La.App., (Third Circuit, 1961), , which held that
  • Bergeron v. Gifford-Hill & Co. 137 So. 2d 63 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
  • Futch v. Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York 136 So. 2d 724 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1961
    The Supreme Court recently gave consideration to the case of Dumas v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, , (1961), and therein reaffirmed the ruling in Addison v. Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Company of Wisconsin, supra, noting that the Dumas case was identical in all particulars with that of Addison.