DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Shelton v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, 334 So. 2d 406.

200 citing documents.

  • Sumner v. Foremost Ins. Co. 417 So. 2d 1327 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
    542 , Shelton v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.
  • Daniel v. ST. FRANCIS CABRINI HOSP. ETC. 415 So. 2d 586 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
    See Shelton v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., Hill v. Lundin & Associates, Inc., 260 La.
  • Haney v. General Host Corp. 413 So. 2d 624 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
  • Barcia v. Estate of Keil 413 So. 2d 241 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
    In order to determine whether the landowner breached a legal duty to protect against a particular risk, our Supreme Court in Shelton v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., set forth the following guidelines: "(1) What if any duty was owed by the landowner to the plaintiff?
  • Patrick v. Incaprera 413 So. 2d 192 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    According to the holding of Shelton v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, (1976), a finding that the defendant’s conduct was the cause in fact of plaintiff’s injury, singularly, does not establish liability.
  • Charles v. Lavergne 412 So. 2d 726 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
    According to Shelton v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, in making this determination, the following inquiries must be made: (1) What, if any, duty was owed by the driver of the truck to the plaintiff?
  • Charpentier v. St. Martin Parish School Bd. 411 So. 2d 717 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
    Shelton v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, Hill v. Lundin & Associates, Inc., 260 La.
  • Flair v. Bd. of Com'rs of Orleans Levee Bd. 411 So. 2d 614 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
    The court cited as authority Shelton v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, La., .
  • Head v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. 408 So. 2d 1174 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
    Shelton v. Aetna *1177 Casualty & Surety Company, Hill v. Lundin & Associates, Inc., 260 La.
  • Goudchaux v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. 407 So. 2d 1317 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
    Hill v. Lundin & Associates, Inc., 260 La.
  • Lacombe v. Greathouse 407 So. 2d 1346 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
    A landowner has a duty to those on his property, expressed by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Shelton v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company
  • Kaplan v. Missouri Pacific R. Co. 409 So. 2d 298 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
    Shelton v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, Hill v. Lundin & Associates, Inc., 260 La.
  • Poche v. Maryland Casualty Co. 407 So. 2d 1237 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    In determining the duty owed by the daughter to her mother, it is not necessary to classify plaintiff as an invitee or licensee, but rather it is appropriate to ascertain this duty by examining the particular facts before us. Shelton v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company
  • Smith v. Louisiana Cement Co. 405 So. 2d 687 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    The defendant’s argument in defense is based in part on the principles enunciated in Shelton v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, (La.
  • Wattigny v. Lambert 408 So. 2d 1126 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
  • Knockum v. Amoco Oil Company 402 So. 2d 90 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    Shelton v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, Hill v. Lundin & Associates, Inc., 260 La.
  • Morgan v. Hartford Acc. and Indem. Co. 402 So. 2d 640 La. 1981
  • Nash v. Draughon Business School 397 So. 2d 37 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    The trial court correctly relied on Shelton v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, which held that a premises owner will not be found liable to a person on the premises who is injured when she falls as a result of a premises condition under her feet which was as obvious to her as it was to the premises owner.
  • Neathery v. STATE, ETC. 395 So. 2d 407 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
    Shelton v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, Hill v. Lundin & Associates, Inc., 260 La.
  • Lear v. United States Fire Ins. Co. 392 So. 2d 786 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
    542 , Shelton v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company
  • Boutte v. Pennsylvania Millers Mut. Ins. Co. 386 So. 2d 700 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
    Shelton v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, supra [ ]; (La.Sup.Ct.
  • Oliphant v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 386 So. 2d 983 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    Shelton v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company
  • Giles v. Humble Oil & Refining Co. 384 So. 2d 569 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
    The law governing the liability of a landowner to a plaintiff injured as a result of a hazardous condition on the property has been expounded in Shelton v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, and Cates v. Bouregard Electric Cooperative, Inc., (La.
  • Smith v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. 385 So. 2d 858 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    (1976), established that a landowner has the duty to discover any unreasonably dangerous conditions on his premises and to either correct the condition or warn potential victims of its existence.
  • Davis v. Moreau 381 So. 2d 1297 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
    The principles regulating the determination of that liability are succinctly set out in the case of Shelton v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company
  • Broyles v. Yarbrough 374 So. 2d 705 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    Shelton v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, Laird v. Travelers Insurance Company, 263 La.
  • Cassity v. Williams 373 So. 2d 586 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
    In interpreting this article the Supreme Court in Shelton v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, said: "The article does provide that by answering an appeal, an appellee, without filing an appeal on his own behalf, may seek relief from any portion of the judgment rendered against him in favor of the appellant.
  • Walker v. Union Oil Mill, Inc. 369 So. 2d 1043 La. 1979
  • Guillotte v. Houston General Ins. Co. 368 So. 2d 1026 La. 1979
    See, Cates v. Beauregard Electric Coop., Inc., cert, denied, 429 U.S. 833 , 97 S.Ct.
  • Young v. Department of Hospitals 365 So. 2d 848 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
    Shelton v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company
  • LaFleur v. City of Ville Platte 367 So. 2d 121 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
    See also Shelton v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., (La.
  • Hebert v. Maryland Cas. Co. 366 So. 2d 1044 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
    Factual causation is a necessary element in an action for negligence, Shelton v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., (La.App.
  • Verdin v. South Coast Corp. 366 So. 2d 1001 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
    Applicable here is a quotation from the case of Shelton v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, as follows: “The duty of a landowner is not to insure against the possibility of an accident on his premises, but rather to act reasonably in view of the probability of injury to others.
  • Richard v. Sonnier 363 So. 2d 961 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1978
    Shelton v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, at 410 (La., 1976).
  • Poe v. State Farm General Ins. Co. 360 So. 2d 634 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1978
    Shelton v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company
  • Guillotte v. Houston General Insurance 360 So. 2d 1188 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
    Cates v. Beauregard Electric Coop., Inc., cert.
  • LeJeune v. Allstate Ins. Co. 356 So. 2d 537 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1978
    542 , (1972); Shelton v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., (La.
  • Boxill v. Metrailer 358 So. 2d 986 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
    In interpreting this article, that this article does allow an appellee relief from any portion of a judgment rendered against him in favor of appellant without appellee having to take his own appeal.
  • Carter v. Salter 351 So. 2d 312 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
    Shelton v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company
  • Provost v. City of Loreauville 352 So. 2d 789 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    In Shelton v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, our Supreme Court stated: “The duty of a landowner is not to insure against the possibility of an accident on his premises, but rather to act reasonably in view of the probability of injury to others.
  • Bourg v. Redden 351 So. 2d 1300 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    We must decide, then, whether defendants' activities were reasonable under the particular facts before us. Shelton v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, La., (1976).
  • Lacour v. Cumis Insurance Society, Inc. 349 So. 2d 953 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    Shelton v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, (1976); Hill v. Lundin & Associates, Inc., 260 La.
  • Florence v. Clinique Laboratories, Inc. 347 So. 2d 1232 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    In discussing this provision, the Supreme Court in Shelton v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, has said: "The article does provide that by answering an appeal, an appellee, without filing an appeal on his own behalf, may seek relief from any portion of the judgment rendered against him in favor of the appellant.
  • Straley v. Calongne Drayage and Storage, Inc. 346 So. 2d 171 La. 1977
    Shelton v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., Hill v. Lundin & Asso., Inc., 260 La.
  • State Farm Mut. Ins. Co. v. SOUTH CENT. BELL TELE. CO. 343 So. 2d 758 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
    & Surety Co., Pierre v. Allstate Ins.
  • Lecompte v. State, Dept. of Pub. Saf. 343 So. 2d 449 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
    In the recent case of Shelton v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, La., (1976) our Supreme Court stated: "Recently, however, this Court in Cates v. Beauregard Electric Cooperative, Inc., noted that `[w]e find the common law classifications of invitee-licensee-trespasser to be of little help in applying C.C.
  • Followed Shelmire v. Linton 343 So. 2d 301 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    The "duty-risk" method for determining when actionable negligence exists has been developed and explained by a
  • G. VIDRINE v. Missouri Farm Association 339 So. 2d 877 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
    542 , Shelton v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company
  • Leonard v. Albany MacH. & Supply Co. 339 So. 2d 458 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    Shelton v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, La., ; Dixie Drive It Yourself System v. American Beverage Company, 242 La.
  • Molaison v. WEST BROS. OF THIBODAUX, LA. INC. 338 So. 2d 726 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    See, also Shelton v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Company handed down on June 21, 1976, Louisiana Supreme Court, .