DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Pearson v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company, 281 So. 2d 724.

65 citing documents.

  • Stansbury v. Hover 366 So. 2d 918 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
    Pearson v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company, (La.
  • Moore v. Sun Oil Co. 357 So. 2d 588 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
    However, in the case of Pearson v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., which is factually indistinguishable from the present case, our Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the trial court.
  • Pearson v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. 345 So. 2d 123 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    The Louisiana Supreme Court on Writ of Certiorari, or Review, reversed that decision and remanded the case to the District Court for trial on the merits, La., (1973).
  • Distinguished CHIN SEE FUN v. Louisville & NR Co. 344 So. 2d 8 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1977
    This case is, we believe, distinguishable from Pearson v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company, in view of the fact that the factual issues regarding the prescriptive contention were squarely met and ultimately resolved by the trial court.
  • Hall v. Hartford Insurance 346 So. 2d 309 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    In Pearson v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company, -26 (La.1973), the Supreme Court observed: “LSA-R.S.
  • Kachelmyer v. Ames 335 So. 2d 525 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    Pearson v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company, La., (1973); (App., 1st Cir. 1960).
  • Small v. Caterpillar Mfg. Corp. 319 So. 2d 843 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
    We feel the situation in this case is governed by the rule enunciated by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Pearson v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company
  • Patin v. Stockstill 315 So. 2d 868 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
    As the plaintiffs have alleged that Con-Plex was solidarily liable, they are entitled to present their evidence and have their case against that defendant heard on the merits, Pearson v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company
  • Anderson v. Sciambra 310 So. 2d 128 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1975
    1973, (see Note, 1974, 20 Loyola L.Rev.
  • Trahan v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company 314 So. 2d 350 La. 1975
  • Trahan v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. 303 So. 2d 606 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
    1 Cir. 1960); Pearson v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company, (La.App.
  • Simmons v. Travelers Insurance Company 295 So. 2d 550 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1974
    As determined in the recent case of Pearson v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company, where a solidary obligation exists, as in the case of an insured and his liability insurer, a timely suit filed against either of these solidary obligors interrupts prescription as to both of them.
  • Natal v. PHOENIX ASSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK 286 So. 2d 738 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1974
    1973, ), any claim against the builder is prescribed and judgment dismissing him was also correct.
  • Davis v. Hanover Insurance Company 289 So. 2d 292 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1974
    Pearson v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company, (La.App.
  • Brugman v. Prejean 288 So. 2d 702 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1974
    Pearson v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company, Lake Providence Equipment Company v. Tallulah Production Credit Ass'n, 257 La.