DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company v. State, Department of Highways, 339 So. 2d 780.

86 citing documents.

  • Craft v. Caldwell Parish Police Jury 455 So. 2d 1226 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
    & G. Co. v. State, Dept. of Highways, (La.
  • Lott v. Landor 452 So. 2d 1266 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. State of Louisiana, Through the Dept. of Highways, Pickens v. St.
  • Evans v. Salter 450 So. 2d 706 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
  • Holt v. Singletary 441 So. 2d 330 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1983
  • Norris v. City of New Orleans 433 So. 2d 392 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
    & G. Co. v. State, Dept. of Highways, (La.
  • McKinnie v. Dept. of Transp. & Development 426 So. 2d 344 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
    & G. v. State, Dept. of Highways
  • Chiasson v. Whitney 427 So. 2d 470 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1983
    & G. v. State, Dept. of Highways, (3rd Cir.1975) writ denied (1975)."
  • Naylor v. La. Dept. of Public Highways 423 So. 2d 674 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    Slaydon, supra; United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company v. State, Department of Highways, (La.
  • Bialy v. STATE, THROUGH DEPT. OF TRANSP. AND DEV. 414 So. 2d 1273 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
    (citations omitted) United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co. v. State, Department of Highways
  • Mobley v. Rego Co. 412 So. 2d 1143 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
    United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. State of Louisiana, Through the Dept. of Highways, Pickens v. St.
  • Tappel v. Vidros 407 So. 2d 789 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
    & G. Co. v. State, Dept. of Highways, (La.App.
  • Oliver v. Parish of Jefferson 408 So. 2d 275 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
    As the court noted in U. S. F. & G. Co. v. State, Dept. of Highways, at 785: "* * * In order to hold the Department of Highways liable for an accident caused by an unsafe or hazardous condition it must be shown that the Highway Department had prior notice, either actual or constructive, of the dangerous condition and had sufficient opportunity to remedy same or at least to a
  • Swanson v. Estate of Augusta 403 So. 2d 118 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
    * * *" It has also been held in U. S. F. & G. Co. v. State, Dept. of Highways, at 785: "* * * The general rule has been recognized in our jurisprudence that a motorist using a public highway has a right to presume, and to act upon the presumption, that the highway is safe for usual and ordinary traffic, either in daytime or at night, and that he is not required to anticipate extraordi
  • Carpenter v. Travelers Ins. Co. 402 So. 2d 282 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
    U. S. F. & G. Co. v. State, Department of Highways, (La.App.
  • Usry v. Louisiana Department of Highways 402 So. 2d 240 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
    U. S. F & G v. State Dept. of Highways
  • Bernard v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co. 401 So. 2d 567 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    & G. Company v. State, Department of Highways, (La.
  • Bush v. STATE THROUGH DEPT. OF HWYS. 395 So. 2d 916 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1981
    (citations omitted) United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co. v. State, Department of Highways
  • Scott v. STATE, DEPT. OF TRANSP. AND DEVELOPMENT 392 So. 2d 482 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    On appeal, the Department argues that the law of this state regarding the liability of public bodies, such as the Department of Transportation and Development, is that which is expressed by our Supreme Court in United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company v. State, Department of Highways, and that that case, is controlling with regard to the liability of public bodies, so that in order to hold the Department liable for an accident caused by a dangerous condition of a state highway, it must be sho
  • Stablier v. City of Baton Rouge 393 So. 2d 148 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    The court was of the opinion that had the Supreme Court intended that Loescher be applicable in suits against public bodies, overruling the line of jurisprudence requiring actual or constructive notice, it could have done so in United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co. v. State of La., Dept. of Hwys., wherein it was observed, "Our finding of negligence and liability under La.C.C.
  • Sibley v. Menard 398 So. 2d 590 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    & G. Co. v. State, Dept. of Highways, (La.App.
  • LeGrand v. State ex rel. Department of Highways 390 So. 2d 957 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    Tammany Parish Police Jury, U. S. F. & G. Co. v. State, Dept. of Highways
  • Stewart v. Schmieder 386 So. 2d 1351 La. 1980
    United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. State of Louisiana, Through the Dept. of Highways, Pickens v. St.
  • Williams v. Louisiana MacHinery Co., Inc. 387 So. 2d 8 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
    United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. State, Through Department of Highways
  • Brummerloh v. Firemen's Ins. Co. of Newark 377 So. 2d 1301 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
    Also, see U. S. F. & G. Co. v. State, Dept. of Highways, (La.App.
  • State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Slaydon 376 So. 2d 97 La. 1979
    USF & G v. State, Dept. of Hwys., (La.
  • Harrison v. State, Dept. of Highways 375 So. 2d 169 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1979
    U. S. F. & G. Co. v. State, Dept. of Highways, Barr v. State, Through La.
  • Brown v. Louisiana Dept. of Highways 373 So. 2d 605 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
    Also see U. S. F. & G. Co. v. State, Dept. of Highways, (La.App.
  • Hebert v. Missouri PR Co. 366 So. 2d 608 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
    Standard Brands, Inc. v. Department of Highways, State of Louisiana, et al., (La.App.
  • Boué v. Louisiana Department of Highways 369 So. 2d 1133 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    U.S.F.&G. Company v. State, Dept. of Highways
  • Wilson v. State, Through Dept. of Highways 364 So. 2d 1313 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
    United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. State, Department of Highways, Laborde v. La., Dept. of Highways, (La.App.
  • Durbin v. City of Baton Rouge 366 So. 2d 1020 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
    United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company v. State of Louisiana, Dept. of Hwys.
  • Anding v. Southwestern Ins. Co. 358 So. 2d 690 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1978
    & G. Co. v. State, Dept. of Highways, that the Highway Department had actual notice of a serious hazard and therefore did not discuss liability under LSA-C.C.
  • American Road Ins. Co. v. Montgomery 354 So. 2d 656 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
    In the most recent expression U.S.F.&G. Co. v. State, Department of Highways, La., (1976), the Supreme Court expressly stated it did not have to reach the question of strict liability under Art. 2317, since it found the Highway Department had received notice and was negligent.
  • Gallien v. Commercial Union Ins. Co. 353 So. 2d 1127 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1978
    The Supreme Court had an opportunity to do so, at least by way of dictum, in United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company v. State of Louisiana, Dept. of Hwys., et al
  • Barnes v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. 350 So. 2d 288 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
    Standard Brands, Inc. v. Department of Highways, State of Louisiana, et al., (La.App.
  • Straley v. Calongne Drayage and Storage, Inc. 346 So. 2d 171 La. 1977