DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Holland v. Buckley, 305 So. 2d 113.

97 citing documents.

  • Ducote v. Boleware 216 So. 3d 934 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    The amendment to Article 2321 returns the law for animals (other than dogs) — the scienter standard—i.e., the first bite rule.
  • Williams v. Galofaro 79 So. 3d 1068 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    the court interpreted the version of Article 2321 then in effect and concluded that the owner of the animal was presumed to be at fault and [scould only exculpate himself by proving that the harm resulted from some independent cause not imputable to him.
  • Smegal v. Gettys 48 So. 3d 431 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    the court interpreted the version of Article 2321 then in effect 1 and concluded that the owner of the animal was presumed to be at fault and could only exculpate himself by proving that the harm resulted from some independent cause not imputable to him.
  • Everett v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Insurance Co. 37 So. 3d 456 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    In the recent case of Pepper v. Triplet, 2003-0619 (La.1/21/04), , the Louisiana Supreme Court performed a textual analysis of Article 2321, the seminal case that abrogated the “first bite free” negligence analysis and adopted a strict liability theory in animal cases.
  • McBride v. XYZ Insurance 935 So. 2d 326 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
    In the recent case of Pepper v. Triplet, 2003-0619 (La.1/21/04), , the court performed a textual analysis of art. 2321, the seminal case which abrogated the “first bite free” negligence analysis and adopted a strict liability theory.
  • Lafayette Parish School Board v. Darlene M. Cormier, on Behalf of Her Minor Child, Jade Cormier La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    At the time of the ruling in Turner v. Bucher, supra, Louisiana’s strict liability law for damages caused by a person or thing in one’s providing interpretation for La.
  • Lafayette Parish School Bd. v. Cormier 901 So. 2d 1197 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    At the time of the ruling in Turner v. Bucher, supra , Louisiana's strict liability law for damages caused by a providing interpretation for La.
  • Pepper v. Triplet 864 So. 2d 181 La. 2004
    [1] The two seminal cases addressing liability under former Article 2321
  • Buller v. AMERICAN NAT. PROPERTY & CAS. COS. 838 So. 2d 67 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
    He contends that the 1996 amendment to La.Civ.Code art. 2321, has also eliminated the presumption of negligence that the courts have applied in "stock law" cases.
  • Pepper v. Triplet 834 So. 2d 624 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
  • Allen v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. 828 So. 2d 190 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
  • Jones v. Cobb 793 So. 2d 495 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
    At the time of the ruling in Turner v. Bucher, supra , Louisiana's strict liability law for damages caused by a (La.
  • Overruled Dubois v. Economy Fire & Cas. Co. 715 So. 2d 131 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
  • Boone v. Ricks 645 So. 2d 228 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
  • Willis v. Lecompte 640 So. 2d 304 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
  • Goza v. Cornwell 622 So. 2d 704 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
    It is interesting and instructive that Justice Tate, the author of this court’s opinions in Loescher and Holland [v. Buckley, ], in an opinion he wrote as a judge of the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, confirmed that the legislative fact consideration and risk-utility balancing tests are valid approaches to determining whether a person or thing under garde posed an unreasonable risk of harm to others.
  • Smith v. American Indem. Ins. Co. 598 So. 2d 486 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
    In Boyer v. Seal, supra, , (La.1974), the court held that under LSA-C.C.P.
  • DuBois v. McGuire 579 So. 2d 1025 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
  • Andrade v. Shiers 564 So. 2d 787 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
  • Boyer v. Seal 553 So. 2d 827 La. 1989
  • Hayes v. McFarland 535 So. 2d 568 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
  • Boyer v. Seal 534 So. 2d 30 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
    the Louisiana Supreme Court interpreted article 2321: “...
  • Motion Industries, Inc. v. LeBlanc 532 So. 2d 498 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
    the Supreme Court stated as follows: [T]he correct interpretation of Civil Code Article 2321 is as follows: When a domesticated animal harms another, the master of the animal is presumed to be at fault.
  • Bertrand v. Berard 521 So. 2d 1264 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
    art. 2321 as providing strict liability for owners of domesticated animals causing harm to another.
  • Howard v. Allstate Ins. Co. 520 So. 2d 715 La. 1988
    : When a domesticated animal harms another, the master of the animal is presumed to be at fault.
  • Andrus v. Cajun Insulation Co. 524 So. 2d 1239 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
    2d Cir.1973), writ granted, reversed, decision after remand, (La.App.
  • Howard v. Allstate Ins. Co. 510 So. 2d 685 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
  • Brannon v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co. 507 So. 2d 194 La. 1987
  • Rozell v. Louisiana Animal Breeders Co-Op., Inc. 496 So. 2d 275 La. 1986
  • Rozell v. LA. ANIMAL BREEDERS CO-OP., INC. 486 So. 2d 968 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    the Supreme Court held, at p. 119: "...
  • Moore v. Lindeman 488 So. 2d 1300 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    The plaintiff asserts that Louisiana Civil Code Article 2821 is controlling in this case.
  • Ducote v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. 488 So. 2d 385 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
  • Dotson v. Matthews 480 So. 2d 860 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
  • Richoux v. Hebert 449 So. 2d 491 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
    Concerning the responsibility of Virgil Vice as the owner of the horse that injured the child
  • Parr v. Head 442 So. 2d 1234 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1983
  • Rozell v. LOUISIANA ANIMAL BREEDERS CO-OP. 434 So. 2d 404 La. 1983
  • Burglass v. US Fidelity and Guar. Co. 427 So. 2d 596 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1983
  • Rozell v. LOUISIANA ANIMAL BREEDERS CO-OP., INC. 422 So. 2d 435 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    In the leading case on strict liability for damages inflicted by a domesticated animal, (La.
  • Dufrene v. Fournier 420 So. 2d 1178 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1982
  • Hardy v. State, Through Dept. of Highways 412 So. 2d 208 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
    [5] On behalf of Mrs. Campbell it is urged that we should look only to our Civil Code in Article 2315 and ignore the jurisprudence
  • LaBorde v. Eagle Trucking Co. 409 So. 2d 1266 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
  • Goldberg v. Ruckstuhl 408 So. 2d 374 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
  • Schiro v. Viola 408 So. 2d 408 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    Alfonso v. Market Facilities of Houston, Inc., (La.App.
  • DeBattista v. Argonaut-Southwest Ins. Co. 403 So. 2d 26 La. 1981
    Chappuis v. Sears Roebuck & Co.
  • Dorry v. LaFleur 399 So. 2d 559 La. 1981
  • Martinez v. Modenbach 396 So. 2d 471 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
    In written reasons, (La.App.
  • Roberts v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. 394 So. 2d 696 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
  • Dosch v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 392 So. 2d 718 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
  • Followed Helverson v. Rapides Parish Police Jury 391 So. 2d 516 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    2nd Cir. 1973), writ issued, reversed, decision on remand, (La.App.
  • Jones v. CITY OF BATON ROUGE, ETC. 388 So. 2d 737 La. 1980
    we held that article 2321 allocates liability for the unreasonable risk of harm created by an animal to the owner of the animal, and that this liability is derived from the legal obligation established by the fact of ownership, not from any negligent conduct.