DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Hill v. Lundin & Associates, Inc., 256 So. 2d 620.

403 citing documents.

  • Fannin v. Louisiana Power & Light Co. 594 So. 2d 1119 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1992
    Hill v. Lundin & Associates, Inc., , (1972); (5th Cir.1986).
  • Gilliam v. K-Mart, Inc. 594 So. 2d 1021 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
    471 , (1970); Hill v. Lundin & Assoc., Inc., , (1972).
  • Smith v. English 586 So. 2d 583 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
    Inc., , (1972); Robertson, Ruminations on Comparative Fault, 44 La.L.Rev.
  • Socorro v. City of New Orleans 579 So. 2d 931 La. 1991
    Co., Hill v. Lundin and Assoc., Inc., , (1972); Pierre v. Allstate Insurance Company, 257 La.
  • Miller v. Everett 576 So. 2d 1162 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1991
    Hill v. Lundin & Associates, Inc., , (1972); Cf. Carter v. City Parish Government, Etc., (La.
  • Fox v. Bd. of Sup'rs of La. State Univ. 576 So. 2d 978 La. 1991
    Hill v. Lundin & Associates, Inc., , (1972).
  • Kessler v. Amica Mut. Ins. Co. 573 So. 2d 476 La. 1991
    Hill v. Lundin Assoc., Inc., , (1972).
  • Clomon v. Monroe City School Bd. 572 So. 2d 571 La. 1991
  • Dupre v. Miller 571 So. 2d 228 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
    Hill v. Lundin & Associates, Inc., et al., , (1972).
  • Walker v. Bankston 571 So. 2d 690 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
    Hill v. Lundin & Associates, Inc., , (1972).
  • Jaggers v. Free State Tool Corp. 571 So. 2d 808 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
    In Hill v. Lundin & Associates, Inc,, , (1972) our Supreme Court quoted with approval from a law review article by Wex Malone explaining the rationale behind this analysis as follows: All rules of conduct, irrespective of whether they are a product of a legislature or are a part of the fabric of the court-made law of negligence, exist f
  • Miller v. Fields 570 So. 2d 39 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
    1976); Hill v. Lundin & Associates, Inc.
  • Pastor v. Lafayette Bldg. Ass'n 567 So. 2d 793 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
    1987); Hill v. Lundin and Associates, Inc., , (1972); Crowe, The Anatomy of a Tort, 22 Loy.
  • Brown v. Tesack 566 So. 2d 955 La. 1990
    See Hill v. Lundin & Associates, Inc., , (1972) and the Dialogues at 34 Louisiana Law Review 1.
  • Lee v. Missouri Pacific R. Co. 566 So. 2d 1052 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
    *1055 Hill v. Lundin & Associates, Inc., , (1972); Dixie Drive It Yourself Sys.
  • Pickard v. Baugh 565 So. 2d 1102 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
    Hill v. Lundin & Associates, Inc., , (1972).
  • Williams v. Markel Lumber Co. 566 So. 2d 446 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
    1982); Hill v. Lundin & Associates, Inc., , (1972); Dixie Drive It Yourself v. American Beverage Co., 242 La.
  • Spencer v. Magee 563 So. 2d 564 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
    1976); Hill v. Lundin & Associates, Inc., , (1972).
  • Spencer-Wallington, Inc. v. Service Merchandise 562 So. 2d 1060 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
    See Hill v. Lundin & Associates
  • Socorro v. Orleans Levee Bd. 561 So. 2d 739 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
    Hill v. Lundin & Associates, Inc., , (1972); *753 (La.App.
  • Picou v. Hartford Ins. Co. 558 So. 2d 787 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1990
    Hill v. Lundin & Associates, Inc., , (1972).
  • Lejeune v. Rayne Branch Hosp. 556 So. 2d 559 La. 1990
    Hill v. Lundin & Associates, Inc., , (1972); Dixie Drive It Yourself System v. American Beverage Co., 242 La.
  • Edwards v. State 556 So. 2d 644 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
    See Finley, supra, at p. 843 , quoting Hill v. Lundin & Associates, Inc., , (1972), citing Prosser.
  • Dillon v. Louisiana Power and Light 557 So. 2d 293 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
    Hunt v. City Stores, Inc., Hill v. Lundin & Associates, Inc., , (1972); (La.App.
  • Mang v. Palmer 557 So. 2d 973 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
    1976); Hill v. Lundin & Associates, Inc., , (1972).
  • Swartzlander v. Hunt Laboratory, Inc. 552 So. 2d 1339 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
    art. 2315; Hill v. Lundin and Associates, Inc., , (1972); (5th Cir.1986).
  • McManus v. Barber Bros. Contracting Co. 552 So. 2d 1017 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
    471 , (1970); Hill v. Lundin and Associates, Inc., , (1972); Rowe v. Travelers Insurance Co., 253 La.
  • Molbert v. Toepfer 550 So. 2d 183 La. 1989
    Hill v. Lundin and Associates, Inc., , (1972); W. Crowe, The Anatomy of a Tort, 22 Loy.L.Rev.
  • Schulze v. Louisiana Power & Light Co. 551 So. 2d 22 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
    Hill v. Lundin and Associates, Inc., , (1972); Dixie Drive It Yourself v. American Beverage Company, 242 La.
  • Doucet v. B & R Petroleum Services, Inc. 546 So. 2d 626 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
    Hill v. Lundin and Associates, Inc., , (1972); Silliker v. St.
  • LP v. Oubre 547 So. 2d 1320 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
    Hill v. Lundin & Associates, Inc., , (1972); Cf. Carter v. City Parish Government, Etc.
  • Harvey v. Ouachita Parish School Bd. 545 So. 2d 1241 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
    In Hill v. Lundin & Associates, Inc., , (1972), the Louisiana Supreme Court quoted from a law review article by Wex Malone explaining the rationale behind this analysis: All rules of conduct, irrespective of whether they are the product of a legislature or are a part of the fabric of the court-made law of negligence, exist for purposes.
  • Ginsberg v. Hontas 545 So. 2d 1154 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
    Hill v. Lundin & Associates, Inc., , (1972).
  • Levi v. SW La. Elec. Membership Co-Op. 542 So. 2d 1081 La. 1989
  • Trabeau v. MacK Trucks, Inc. 543 So. 2d 1381 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
    Hill v. Lundin & Associates, Inc., , (1972); (La.
  • W.B. McCartney Oil Co. v. Hataway 544 So. 2d 56 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
    3rd Cir.1985), Judge Guidry remarked: “In discussing this step in the duty-risk analysis, the Supreme Court, in Hill v. Lundin & Associates, Inc., , (1972), stated: ‘...
  • Tallo v. Stroh Brewery Co. 544 So. 2d 452 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
    471 , (1962); Hill v. Lundin & Associates, Inc., , (1972).
  • King v. Louviere 543 So. 2d 1327 La. 1989
    1988); PPG Industries, Hill v. Lundin & Associates, Inc., , (1972); Langlois v. Allied Chemical, 258 La.
  • Wright v. US Gypsum Co. 538 So. 2d 291 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
    In Hill v. Lundin & Associates, Inc., , (1972) the court stated as follows: Where the rule of law upon which a plaintiff relies for imposing a duty is based upon a statute, the court attempts to interpret legislative intent as to the risk contemplated by the legal duty, which is often a resort to the court's own judgment of the scope of prot
  • Trahan v. State, Dept. of Transp. & Dev. 536 So. 2d 1269 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
    Hill v. Lundin and Associates, Inc., , (1972); Crowe, The Anatomy of a Tort, 22 Loy.L.Rev.
  • Callahan v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. 535 So. 2d 482 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
    Hill v. Lundin & Associates, Inc., , (1972).
  • Oliveaux v. Sanders 535 So. 2d 1034 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
  • Bishop v. Callais 533 So. 2d 121 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
    See, Hill v. Lundin & Associates, Inc., , (1972).
  • Moolekamp v. Rubin 531 So. 2d 1124 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
    Shelton v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, Hill v. Lundin & Associates, Inc., , (1972); Dixie Drive-It-Yourself System v. American Beverage Company, 242 La.
  • Pitre v. Opelousas General Hosp. 530 So. 2d 1151 La. 1988
    See, e.g., PPG Industries, Hill v. Lundin and Assoc., Inc., , (1972).
  • Johnson v. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. 531 So. 2d 773 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
    Hill v. Lundin and Associates, Inc., , (1972); Crowe, The Anatomy of a Tort, 22 Loy.L.Rev.
  • Funez v. Jefferson Parish School Bd. 528 So. 2d 1057 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
    Hill v. Lundin & Associates, Inc., , (1972).
  • Prince v. Conoco, Inc. 529 So. 2d 39 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
  • CAJUN ELEC. POWER CO-OP., INC. v. Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp. 528 So. 2d 716 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
    Hill v. Lundin & Associates, Inc., , Dixie Drive it Yourself Sys.
  • Pratt v. Lifemark Corp. 531 So. 2d 488 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
    In one of the early landmark cases on duty risk, Hill v. Lundin & Associates, , the court adopted the following from Malone, Ruminations on Cause-In-Fact, 9 Stanford L.Rev.