DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

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.

  • Burnell v. Sportran Transit System Co. 421 So. 2d 1199 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
    Hill v. Lundin & Assoc., , (1972).
  • Naylor v. La. Dept. of Public Highways 423 So. 2d 674 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    Hill v. Lundin & Associates, Inc., , (1972); and LeBlanc v. State, Through Department of Corrections, (La.App.
  • LeBlanc v. State 419 So. 2d 853 La. 1982
    (1972) (quoting Malone, Ruminations on Cause-In-Fact, 9 Stanford L.Rev.
  • Guillory v. Audubon Ins. Co. 417 So. 2d 892 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
    Hill v. Lundin & Associates, Inc., [ , ] supra; Pierre v. Allstate Insurance Co., 257 La.
  • Doyen v. Cessna Aircraft Co. 416 So. 2d 1337 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
    Certainly there was less reason for Cessna and D&M to believe in this case that the plane would be flown in violation of the regulations than for the exonerated contractor in Hill v. Lundin & Associates, Inc., , to believe that the ladder which he left unattended leaning against the house would be moved by a third person to the ground where it caused the plaintiff to trip and fall.
  • Crowe v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 416 So. 2d 1376 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
    [2] See Shelton v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., Hill v. Lundin & Associates, Inc., , (1972); Head v. St.
  • Sumner v. Foremost Ins. Co. 417 So. 2d 1327 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
    3rd Cir. 1976), writ denied, Hill v. Lundin & Associates, Inc., , Shelton v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.
  • Daniel v. ST. FRANCIS CABRINI HOSP. ETC. 415 So. 2d 586 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
    See Shelton v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., Hill v. Lundin & Associates, Inc., , (1972); Head v. St.
  • McCoy v. Franklin Parish Police Jury 414 So. 2d 1369 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
    See Hill v. Lundin & Assoc., Inc., , (1972); Dixie Drive It Yourself System v. American Beverage Co., 242 La.
  • Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. STATE, ETC. 413 So. 2d 1360 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    See also Hill v. Lundin & Associates, Inc., , (1972).
  • Kent v. Gulf States Utilities Co. 418 So. 2d 493 La. 1982
    Hill v. Lundin & Assoc., Inc., , (1972).
  • Charles v. Lavergne 412 So. 2d 726 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
    Hill v. Lundin & Associates, Inc., , Neathery v. State, Through its Department of Corrections, supra; (La.App.
  • Charpentier v. St. Martin Parish School Bd. 411 So. 2d 717 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
    Shelton v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, Hill v. Lundin & Associates, Inc., , (1972); (La.App.
  • Tyson v. American Indemnity Co. 411 So. 2d 498 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    Hill v. Lundin & Associates, Inc., , (1972); Dixie Drive It Yourself System v. American Beverage Co., 242 La.
  • Wilkinson v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. 411 So. 2d 22 La. 1982
    Hill v. Lundin & Assoc., Inc., , (1972).
  • Tilley v. Mount Vernon Ins. Co. 411 So. 2d 72 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
    810 , our Supreme Court has observed in Hill v. Lundin & Associates, Inc., , (1972) that foreseeability is not always a reliable guide, and is not the only criterion for determining whether there is a duty-risk relationship.
  • Head v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. 408 So. 2d 1174 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
    Shelton v. Aetna *1177 Casualty & Surety Company, Hill v. Lundin & Associates, Inc., , (1972); (La.App.
  • Goudchaux v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. 407 So. 2d 1317 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
    Hill v. Lundin & Associates, Inc., , (1972); (La.App.
  • Lacombe v. Greathouse 407 So. 2d 1346 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
    Hill v. Lundin & Associates, Inc., , (1972); Steele v. St.
  • Kaplan v. Missouri Pacific R. Co. 409 So. 2d 298 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
    Shelton v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, Hill v. Lundin & Associates, Inc., , (1972); (La.
  • Poche v. Maryland Casualty Co. 407 So. 2d 1237 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    Hill v. Lundin & Associates, Inc., , (1972).
  • Wattigny v. Lambert 408 So. 2d 1126 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
    3 Cir. 1974); Hill v. Lundin & Associates, Inc., , (1972)
  • Knockum v. Amoco Oil Company 402 So. 2d 90 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    471 , (1962); Hill v. Lundin & Associates, Inc., , (1972); Laird v. Travelers Insurance Company, 263 La.
  • Nelson v. Powers 402 So. 2d 129 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    471 , (1970); Hill v. Lundin & Associates, Inc., , (1972).
  • Lambert v. Maryland Cas. Co. 403 So. 2d 739 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
    Hill v. Lundin & Associates, Inc., , (1972); Laird v. Travelers Ins.
  • Pierrotti v. Associated Indem. Corp. 399 So. 2d 679 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    471 , (1970); Hill v. Lundin & Associates, Inc., , (1972); Laird v. Travelers Insurance Company, 263 La.
  • Dornak v. Lafayette General Hospital 399 So. 2d 168 La. 1981
    Hill v. Lundin & Associates, Inc., , (1972).
  • Martinez v. Modenbach 396 So. 2d 471 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
    The Louisiana Supreme Court in Hill v. Lundin & Associates, Inc., pointed out that the first inquiry under a duty-risk analysis is whether any causal relationship existed between the harm to the plaintiff and the defendants' alleged negligent conduct and whether the defendant breached a legal duty imposed to protect against the particular risk involved.
  • Neathery v. STATE, ETC. 395 So. 2d 407 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
    Shelton v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, Hill v. Lundin & Associates, Inc., , (1972); (La.App.
  • Explained Bonura v. Commercial Union Insurance Co. 393 So. 2d 1239 La. 1981
    (1972): “if the defendant’s conduct of which the plaintiff complains is a cause in fact of the harm, we are then required in a determination of negligence to ascertain whether the defendant breached a legal duty imposed to protect against the particular risk involved.” There is no doubt that the t
  • Palmer v. State 393 So. 2d 427 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    Hill v. Lundin & Associates, Inc., , (1972); Ganey v. Beatty, supra.
  • Ross v. Central Louisiana State Hospital 392 So. 2d 698 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
    Hill v. Lundin & Associates, Inc., , (1972).
  • Lear v. United States Fire Ins. Co. 392 So. 2d 786 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
    3 Cir. 1976), writ denied, Hill v. Lundin & Associates, Inc., , Shelton v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company
  • Eppinette v. Smelser 391 So. 2d 1335 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    See Hill v. Lundin & Associates, Inc., , (1972).
  • Ganey v. Beatty 391 So. 2d 545 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
    Hill v. Lundin & Associates, Inc.
  • Williams v. Louisiana MacHinery Co., Inc. 387 So. 2d 8 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
    Hill v. Lundin & Associates, Inc., , (1972); Dixie Drive It Yourself System v. American Beverage Co., 242 La.
  • Johnson v. Edmonston 383 So. 2d 1277 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    Hill v. Lundin & Associates, Inc., , (1972).
  • Wall v. American Employers Ins. Co. 377 So. 2d 369 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1980
    471 , Hill v. Lundin & Associates, Inc.
  • Broyles v. Yarbrough 374 So. 2d 705 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    199 , (1972); Hill v. Lundin & Associates, Inc., , (1972); Dixie Drive It Yourself System New Orleans Co. v. American Beverage Company, 242 La.
  • Kane v. Braquet 368 So. 2d 1176 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
    As in Hill v. Lundin & Associates, Inc., , (1972), where the plaintiff tripped over a ladder left by the defendant in an upright position on the *1182 premises but laid subsequently on the ground by a third person, if Romero had not permitted Braquet to pass through the gate onto the island the shooting would not have occurred.
  • Steele v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. 371 So. 2d 843 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
    Hill v. Lundin & Associates, Inc., , (1972).
  • Sullivan v. Hooker Chemical Co. 370 So. 2d 672 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1979
    See Robertson, Reason versus Rule in Louisiana Tort Law: Dialogues on Hill v. Lundin & Associates, Inc., [ , ] 34 La.L.Rev.
  • LaFleur v. City of Ville Platte 367 So. 2d 121 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
    In my view a determination as to whether, under the circumstances of this case, defendant bears any responsibility to plaintiffs for their injuries must be reached by application of the duty-risk inquiry as espoused in Hill v. Lundin &Associates, Inc., , (1972).
  • Becnel v. St. John the Baptist Parish Police Jury 364 So. 2d 1074 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
    Hill v. Lundin & Associates, Inc., , (1972).
  • Ainsworth v. Treadway 361 So. 2d 957 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
    471 , (1970); Hill v. Lundin & Associates, Inc., , (1972).
  • Weaver v. O'BANION 359 So. 2d 706 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
    The quotation in Hill v. Lundin & Associates, Inc., , (1972) from Malone, Ruminations on Cause-In-Fact, 9 Stanford L.Rev.
  • LeJeune v. Allstate Ins. Co. 356 So. 2d 537 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1978
    Inc., , (1972); Shelton v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., (La.
  • Allen v. Humble Oil & Refining Co. 359 So. 2d 218 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
    In Hill v. Lundin & Associates, Inc., , (1972), the court stated: “The same policy considerations which would motivate a legislative body to impose duties to protect from certain risks are implied by the court in making its determination.
  • Peltier v. Department of Highways 357 So. 2d 897 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
    We prefer, however, to analyze the cases on the duty-risk ambit principles of Hill v. Lundin & Associates, , (1972) and other similar cases.
  • Lochbaum v. Bowman 353 So. 2d 379 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
    See Hill v. Lundin & Associates, Inc., , (1972).