Cited by
Opinions in Louisiana that cite Ramp v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, 269 So. 2d 239.
-
Crawford v. Gray and Associates
493 So. 2d 734
La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, , (1972).
-
Reed v. Verwoerdt
490 So. 2d 421
La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company, , (1972).
-
Gifford v. New England Reinsurance Corp.
488 So. 2d 736
La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, , (La.
-
Bellamy v. Janssen
477 So. 2d 928
La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, , (1972).
- Elzy v. ABC Ins. Co. 472 So. 2d 205 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
-
RAYNE STATE BANK & TR. CO. v. Nat. Union Fire Ins. Co.
469 So. 2d 409
La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company, , (1972).
- Evans v. Detweiler 466 So. 2d 800 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
-
Amant v. Talley
454 So. 2d 153
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, , at 244 (La.1972) sets out, as follows, the duty an attorney owes to his client: An attorney is obligated to exercise at least that degree of care, skill, and diligence which is exercised by prudent practicing attorneys in his locality.
-
Meyers v. Imperial Cas. Indem. Co.
451 So. 2d 649
La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, , (1972).
-
Sturm v. Zelden and Zelden
445 So. 2d 32
La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, , (1972); (La.
-
Cherokee Restaurant, Inc. v. Pierson
428 So. 2d 995
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, , (1972); (La.App.
-
Davis v. United Parcel Service, Inc.
427 So. 2d 921
La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, , (1972), the court stated as follows: "An attorney is obligated to exercise at least that degree of care, skill, and diligence which is exercised by prudent practicing attorneys in his locality.
- Caridas v. Cabral 427 So. 2d 459 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
-
Cummings v. Skeahan Corp.
405 So. 2d 1146
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, , (1972).
-
Viccinelli v. Causey
401 So. 2d 1243
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, , (1972), as follows: "An attorney is obligated to exercise at least that degree of care, skill, and diligence which is exercised by prudent practicing attorneys in his locality.
-
Jenkins v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.
393 So. 2d 851
La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1981
Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, , (1972), the Louisiana Supreme Court held in an attorney malpractice case that the plaintiff was entitled to recover from the negligent attorneys the additional attorneys fees that he would not have incurred but for the negligence of the defendant attorneys.
-
Ambrose v. Roberts
393 So. 2d 132
La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, , (La.
-
Norman v. Drury
368 So. 2d 1103
La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1979
Co., 1972, , , and that case, because it is a separation case, is not decidable by jury, La.C.C.P.
- Gill v. DiFatta 364 So. 2d 1352 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
-
Langendorf v. Administrators of Tulane Ed. Fund
361 So. 2d 905
La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
Co., , (1972), in which the attorney's fee incurred to correct another attorney's professional error was awarded as an item of damages in a legal malpractice action.
-
Corceller v. Brooks
347 So. 2d 274
La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1977
Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, , (1972).
-
Muse v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.
328 So. 2d 698
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
774 , , 55 ALR(3d) 967, as follows: "An attorney is obligated to exercise at least that degree of care, skill, and diligence which is exercised by prudent practicing attorneys in his locality.
-
Watkins v. Sheppard
278 So. 2d 890
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, , (1972).
-
Vessel v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co.
276 So. 2d 874
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
Paul Fire & Marine, , , the Supreme Court stated in the initial sentence of the majority opinion: "Plaintiffs, four of the five children of John J. Ramp, Sr., brought this action in tort for damages allegedly sustained because attorneys who represented them earlier in their father's succession proceedings were negligent."