DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Morneau v. American Oil Company, 272 So. 2d 313.

44 citing documents.

  • Wayne Guillot, Et Ux. v. Reece Guillot, Et Ux. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
  • Midland Funding, LLC v. Cady 110 So. 3d 656 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
    Sheets Family Partners-Louisiana, Ltd. v. Inner City Refuge Dev.
  • Purvis Touchet v. Mark Hampton La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
  • Touchet v. Hampton 1 So. 3d 729 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
  • Purvis Touchet v. Mark Hampton La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
    (quoting Richardson v. Zuntz, 26 La.Ann.
  • Touchet v. Hampton 950 So. 2d 895 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
    (quoting Richardson v. Zuntz, 26 La.Ann.
  • Landry v. Bellanger 851 So. 2d 943 La. 2003
    the Court concluded, We granted this writ primarily because, contrary to earlier Supreme Court decisions, a number of Court of Appeal decisions have followed a rule of law that words constitute provocation which excuses a battery ...
  • Demeritt v. Trahan 755 So. 2d 952 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    which abandoned the “fighting words” doctrine, the Court pronounced that mere words, even though designed to excite or irritate, cannot excuse a battery.
  • Jones v. Thomas 557 So. 2d 1015 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
    Johnson v. Dixon, supra.
  • Robinson v. Hardy 505 So. 2d 767 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
  • Serpas v. New Orleans Police Department 483 So. 2d 1259 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
  • Brossette v. Clofort 481 So. 2d 637 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
  • Ross v. Sheriff of Lafourche Parish 479 So. 2d 506 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    Johnson v. Powell, 338 So.2d *513 177 (La.App.
  • State v. Lombard 471 So. 2d 782 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
    ” In Morneau , which was a civil action for damages, the plaintiff said “God damn” in the presence of the defendant’s wife.
  • Barras v. Touchet 467 So. 2d 172 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    reiterating the holding in Richardson v. Zuntz, 26 La.Ann.
  • Johnson v. Dixon 457 So. 2d 79 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
  • State v. Ducote 452 So. 2d 1305 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
  • Gilliam v. Williams 451 So. 2d 681 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
  • Criticized DiBenedetto v. Stark 428 So. 2d 864 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • Downey v. Clark 426 So. 2d 331 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
  • Dean v. Nunez 423 So. 2d 1299 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
  • Freeman v. Lee & Leon Oil Co., Inc. 409 So. 2d 408 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
    Cappo v. Vinson Guard Service, Inc., (La.App.
  • Cappo v. Vinson Guard Service, Inc. 400 So. 2d 1148 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
  • Choate v. Greene 386 So. 2d 948 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
  • Weysham v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. 385 So. 2d 19 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
    As pointed out by NOPSI, at 316 (La.1973), citing earlier cases, recognized that provocation by words can be considered in mitigation of damages.
  • Augustine v. Washington Parish Police Jury 383 So. 2d 1271 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
  • Camel v. Hynes 382 So. 2d 976 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
  • Holden v. Straughn 376 So. 2d 1292 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1979
    Richardson v. Zuntz, 26 La.Ann.
  • Norrell v. City of Monroe 375 So. 2d 159 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1979
  • Posey v. Fabre 369 So. 2d 237 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1979
    Whatever be its merits in respect to a third person only vicariously liable for the assault, this argument is rejected in respect to the assaulter himself by Morneau v. American Oil Co., La.1973, .
  • Sherwood v. Sepulvado 362 So. 2d 1161 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1978
  • Skains v. Tidwell 359 So. 2d 247 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1978
    Richardson v. Zuntz, 26 La.
  • Matthews v. Sno's Seafood & Steak House, Inc. 356 So. 2d 527 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    The Louisiana Rule is that “mere words, even though designed to excite or irritate, cannot excuse a battery.”
  • Dubois v. Reliance Ins. Co. 349 So. 2d 458 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
  • Andrepont v. Naquin 345 So. 2d 1216 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    in citing a long line of cases, the Supreme Court recognized as a well-established rule that although provocation by words alone does not justify a battery, it may be considered in the mitigation of damages.
  • Johnson v. Powell 338 So. 2d 177 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1976
  • Daigle v. Goodwin 311 So. 2d 921 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
  • Watts v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company 309 So. 2d 402 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1975
    Richardson v. Zuntz, 26 La.Ann.
  • Territo v. Landry 313 So. 2d 309 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
    (1973), the court held: “[1] We conclude that the courts below erred in considering mere words as justification for a battery.
  • Harrell v. Mayer 306 So. 2d 340 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
    We are aware of the recent decision by our Supreme Court in Morneau v. American Oil Company, La., (1973) which holds that mere words, even though designed to excite or irritate, cannot excuse a battery.
  • Foster v. Barker 306 So. 2d 910 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
    The trial judge, in rendering judgment in favor of plaintiff, found as a fact that "no overt physical act" was taken toward the defendant and further found that mere words, even though intended to incite or irritate, cannot justify a battery, (1973); (La.App.
  • Broussard v. Guilbeaux 295 So. 2d 216 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
    held that mere words, even though designed to excite or irritate, cannot excuse a battery, it is submitted by appellant that the case did not completely overrule the “aggressor” doctrine.
  • Caldwell v. Nance 291 So. 2d 461 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1974
  • Squyres v. Phillips 285 So. 2d 337 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1973
    Morneau v. American Oil Co., La., (1973).