DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Cates v. Beauregard Electric Cooperative, Inc., 328 So. 2d 367.

195 citing documents.

  • Carroll v. Newtron, Inc. 477 So. 2d 719 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
  • Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. M & a FARMS, LTD. 462 So. 2d 1323 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
  • Cargo v. Green 463 So. 2d 685 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
    Cates v. Beauregard Electric Cooperative, Inc.
  • Daniel Oil Co. v. Signal Rental Tools & Oilfield Service, Inc. 461 So. 2d 526 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    art. 966; Cates v. Beauregard Electric Cooperative, Inc., writ denied, 429 U.S. 833 , 97 S.Ct.
  • Holley v. Palermo 461 So. 2d 539 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
    3 Cir.1982); Cates v. Beauregard Electric Cooperative, Inc.
  • Cupp v. Federated Rural Elec. Ins. Co. 459 So. 2d 1337 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
  • Employers Insurance of Wausau v. Cajun Contractors & Engineers Inc. 459 So. 2d 610 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
  • Woodson Const. Co., Inc. v. RL Abshire Const. Co. 459 So. 2d 566 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
    Cates v. Beauregard Electric Cooperative, Inc., (La.App.
  • Esco v. Smith 457 So. 2d 786 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    The court, in Williams , cites the often used language in Cates v. Beaurregard Electric Cooperative, Inc., : “Electric wires on a pole are an announcement of danger to almost anyone smart enough and old enough to get himself in contact with a wire 28 feet above the ground.” In that case, a 16 year old climbed a power pole and cut a wire, incorrectly and unfortunately assuming that it was not live.
  • Deville v. Defending Attorneys for Continental Oil Co. 448 So. 2d 885 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    art. 966; Cates v. Beauregard Electric Cooperative, Inc., writ denied, 429 U.S. 833 , 97 S.Ct.
  • Lacombe v. Duke Transportation, Inc. 449 So. 2d 708 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    art. 966; Cates v. Beauregard Electric Cooperative, Inc.
  • Ronquille v. Martin 449 So. 2d 1126 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    Cates v. Beauregard Electric Cooperative, Inc., and Acme Refrigeration of Baton Rouge, Inc. v. Caljoan, Inc.
  • Massingale v. Sibley 449 So. 2d 98 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    Cates v. Beauregard Electric Cooperative, Inc.
  • Williams v. Airport Appliance & Floor Covering, Inc. 445 So. 2d 764 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
    Cates v. Beauregard Electric Cooperative, Inc.
  • Whitney v. Mallet 442 So. 2d 1361 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
    Cates v. Beauregard Electric Cooperative, Inc., Kay v. Carter, 243 La.1095, (1963); (La.App.
  • Chargois v. Trip-L-Quik 441 So. 2d 45 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
    art. 966; Cates v. Beauregard Electric Cooperative, Inc., writ denied, 429 U.S. 833 , 97 S.Ct.
  • Crowe v. Hoover 434 So. 2d 1231 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    Cates v. Beauregarde Electric Cooperative, Inc.
  • Quintana Petroleum Corp. v. Alpha Investments Corp. 435 So. 2d 1092 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    Cates v. Beauregard Electric Cooperative, Inc.
  • Fallo v. Tuboscope Inspection, Intracoastal Pipe Repair & Supply Co. 435 So. 2d 1033 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    that there is no genuine issue as to material fact, and that the mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Dixie Campers, Thornhill v. Black, Sivalls & Bryson, Inc., Cates v. Beauregard Electric Cooperative, Inc., (Emphasis added) In this regard, the jurisprudence holds that only when reasonable minds must inevitably conclude that the mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the facts before the court is a summary judgment warranted.
  • Big S Trucking Co. v. Gervais Favrot, Inc. 450 So. 2d 369 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    Only when reasonable minds must inevitably conclude that the mover is entitled to judgment on the facts before the court should summary judgment be granted, Cates v. Beauregard Electric Cooperative, Inc., cert.
  • Entrevia v. Hood 427 So. 2d 1146 La. 1983
    Although the wholesale immunities from civil responsibility resulting from the common law classification of a person as a trespasser are not recognized by our law, a knowingly unauthorized entry of another's fenced and posted immovable property is legally and morally reprehensible conduct.
  • Ortego v. Ortego 425 So. 2d 1292 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
    Inc., Kay v. Carter, 243 La.
  • Insured Lloyds Insurance v. South Coast Gas Co. 424 So. 2d 1128 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    art. 966; Cates v. Beauregard Electric Cooperative, Inc.
  • Boudreaux v. Verret 422 So. 2d 1167 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
    Art. 966; Cates v. Beauregard Electric Cooperative, Inc.
  • McKenzie v. Standard Life Insurance Co. 422 So. 2d 1387 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    Cates v. Beauregard Electric Cooperative, Inc.
  • Epting v. HDO, Inc. 422 So. 2d 461 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    Our Supreme Court indicated in Cates v. Beauregard Electric Cooperative, Inc., that the traditional categories of invitee, licensee and trespasser are of little assistance in determining the liability of a landowner to a party injured on his property.
  • Williams v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. 421 So. 2d 278 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
    This conclusion is bolstered by the comment of the court in Cates v. Beauregard Electric Cooperative, Inc., (La.
  • Doyen v. Cessna Aircraft Co. 416 So. 2d 1337 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
    Co. v. City of Baton Rouge, supra; Andrew Development Corp. v. West Esplanade Corp., supra; Morgan v. Matlack, Inc., supra; Cates v. Beauregard Electric Cooperative, Inc.
  • Verrett v. Cameron Telephone Co. 417 So. 2d 1319 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
    Coop., Inc., Kay v. Carter, 243 La.
  • Bouffanie v. Cheramie 417 So. 2d 32 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    art. 966; Cates v. Beauregard Electric Cooperative, Inc.
  • McKinney v. Louisiana Nat. Bank 416 So. 2d 948 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    In Cates v. Beauregard Electric Cooperative, Inc., both the appellate court and the Supreme Court affirmed a summary judgment granted in favor of defendants in a serious personal injury case, on the ground that the victim was contributorily negligent.
  • Entrevia v. Hood 413 So. 2d 954 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    Because of our finding, we need not consider the issues of the duty owed to a trespasser (see Cates v. Beauregard Electric *956 Cooperative, Inc., and of any possible agency relationship.
  • Barcia v. Estate of Keil 413 So. 2d 241 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
  • Patrick v. Incaprera 413 So. 2d 192 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    However, the Supreme Court in the case of Cates v. Beauregard Electric Cooperative, Inc., (1976) found the invitee-licensee-trespasser classification as defined in the common law to be of little help in applying Louisiana Civil Code Article 2315.
  • Home Insurance Co. v. Simon 411 So. 2d 1268 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    Co. v. City of Baton Rouge, supra; Andrew Development Corp. v. West Esplanade Corp., supra; Morgan v. Matlack, Inc., supra; Cates v. Beauregard Electric Cooperative, Inc.
  • Flair v. Bd. of Com'rs of Orleans Levee Bd. 411 So. 2d 614 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
    [2] The court rejected any distinction between a trespasser as opposed to a licensee or invitee, based on Cates v. Beauregard Electric Cooperative, Inc., La., , and Bourg v. Redden, La.App., .
  • Munson v. Safeco Ins. Co. 411 So. 2d 578 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    Co. v. City of Baton Rouge, supra ; Cates v. Beauregard Electric Cooperative, Inc.
  • Thompson v. South Central Bell Tel. Co. 411 So. 2d 26 La. 1982
  • Gautreau v. Southern Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. 410 So. 2d 815 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
    Coop., Inc., Kay v. Carter, 243 La.
  • Barnes v. Combined Ins. Co. of America 409 So. 2d 700 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
    Co. v. City of Baton Rouge, supra, Andrew Development Corp. v. West Esplanade Corp., supra; Morgan v. Matlack, Inc., supra; Cates v. Beauregard Electric Cooperative, Inc.
  • Johnson v. Ortego 408 So. 2d 397 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    Cates v. Beauregard Electric Cooperative, Inc.
  • Millet v. Nelson 408 So. 2d 360 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    Whether or not Nelson had permission to grab the steering wheel is a legal conclusion the court must arrive at from those stipulated facts, just as the lower courts reached a conclusion of contributory negligence and the Supreme Court agreed in Cates v. Beauregard Electric Cooperative, Inc.
  • Maryland Casualty Co. v. Bollich 408 So. 2d 20 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    Cates v. Beauregard Electric Cooperative, Inc., (La.App.
  • Kaplan v. Missouri Pacific R. Co. 409 So. 2d 298 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
    See Cates v. Beauregard Electric Cooperative, Inc., (La.
  • Melon v. Capital City Press 407 So. 2d 85 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    In Cates v. Beauregard Electric Cooperative, Inc., the Supreme Court, in considering defendant's motion for summary judgment, stated that: "When the evidence submitted on the motion leaves no relevant, or genuine issue of fact, and when reasonable minds must inevitably conclude that the mover is entitled to judgment on the facts before the court, the motion
  • Klohn v. Louisiana Power & Light 406 So. 2d 577 La. 1981
    art. 966; Duvalle v. Lake Kenilworth, Inc.
  • Reine v. Kearns 402 So. 2d 805 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    Co. v. City of Baton Rouge, supra; Andrew Development Corp. v. West Esplanade Corp., supra; Morgan v. Matlack, Inc., supra; Cates v. Beauregard Electric Cooperative, Inc., (La.
  • STATE ETC. v. City of Pineville 403 So. 2d 49 La. 1981
  • Lambert v. McReynolds 402 So. 2d 157 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    In Cates v. Beauregard Electric Cooperative, Inc., the court said: “When the evidence submitted on the motion leaves no relevant, genuine issue of fact, and when reasonable minds must inevitably conclude that the mover is entitled to judgment on the facts before the court, the motion for summary judgment should be granted (C.C.P.
  • Traylor v. Shell Oil Co. 400 So. 2d 342 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
    Cates v. Beauregard Electric Corporation, Inc., (La.