Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Foster v. Hampton, 352 So. 2d 197.

40 citing documents.

Brittany Nicole Howe, Individually and as Natural Tutrix of Grayson Konrad, a Minor v. Samantha Gafford and the … La. 2024
42:1441.4(2) and (3); (La.
State of Louisiana v. Center for Tech and Civic Life La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
Sarah Barber v. Louisiana Municipal Risk Management Agency Group Self-Insured Fund La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
(2) and represent misinterpretations and misapplications of Civil Code Article 2320 and other laws imposing liability on a master for the offenses and quasi offense
Barber v. La. Mun. Risk Mgmt. Agency 240 So. 3d 262 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
(2) and ; represent misinterpretations and misapplications of Civil Code Article 2320 and other laws imposing liability on a master for the offenses and quasi offenses of his servant.
Higginbotham v. Rapides Foundation 968 So. 2d 1226 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
Elizabeth Higginbotham v. Rapides Healthcare System, LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
[] (La.1977).” DECREE For the foregoing reasons, the summary judgments of the trial court are affirmed.
Hite v. Larpenter 923 So. 2d 140 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
the supreme court agreed with this circuit’s analysis regarding sovereign immunity as it applied to liability for acts of a sheriffs deputies, as follows: *146 The First Circuit, in responding to this argument, stated: “There is no merit in the appellant’s position that the protection granted to sherif
Arthur v. Zapata Haynie Corp. 690 So. 2d 86 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
D'Amico v. City of Baton Rouge 620 So. 2d 1199 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
reversed on other grounds, (La.App.
Nall v. Parish of Iberville 542 So. 2d 145 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Cooley v. State 533 So. 2d 124 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
Vance v. Orleans Parish Criminal Sheriff's Department 483 So. 2d 1178 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
1 however, the Louisiana Supreme Court stated that the relationship between a parish sheriff and his deputy is not one of master and servant or principal and agent, but that the State as the employer of the deputy sheriff might be vicariously liable for the negligent torts of a deputy in the course and scope
Diaz v. Allstate Ins. Co. 433 So. 2d 699 La. 1983
[3] Cf. Foster v. Hampton, *702 Williams v. Guerre, 182 La.
Sciortino v. Alfano 435 So. 2d 1010 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1983
*1014 Sciortino contends that at the time of his injury, was in effect and that deputies were considered employees of the State.
Ober v. State ex rel. Louisiana Department of Corrections 424 So. 2d 533 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
See also, Nielson v. Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office, (La.App.
Brodnax v. Cappel 425 So. 2d 232 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
McNeely v. Dept. of Health & Human Resources 413 So. 2d 594 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Johnson v. Doe 410 So. 2d 365 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
Curry v. Iberville Parish Sheriff's Office 405 So. 2d 1387 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
Jenkins v. Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office 402 So. 2d 669 La. 1981
Martinez v. Reynolds 398 So. 2d 156 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
The concept that the State of Louisiana is the employer of deputy sheriffs and, as such, wherein the court stated: "...
Carmouche v. Oubre 394 So. 2d 805 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
after remand, the court held that a deputy sheriff is an employee of the state and the state is vicariously liable under C.C.
Brister v. Parish of Jefferson 393 So. 2d 883 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
Hryhorchuk v. Smith 390 So. 2d 497 La. 1980
594 (1935); State v. Titus, supra
Mullins v. State 387 So. 2d 1151 La. 1980
Rodrigue v. Breaux 388 So. 2d 60 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
We found that a was pure dictum.
Jenkins v. Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office 385 So. 2d 578 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
As to the vicarious liability of the Sheriff for the alleged negligent act of his deputy, the court reaffirmed the jurisprudence to the effect that a sheriff is not liable for the negligent act of his deputy under the doctrine of respondeat superior unless the deputy is engaged in an official act, and the operation of an automobile without negligence is not the performance of an official duty su
Michaelman v. Amiss 385 So. 2d 404 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
We found that a was pure dictum.
Hryhorchuk v. Smith 379 So. 2d 281 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
the Supreme Court refused to hold a local governmental entity (East Baton Rouge Parish) liable for the *291 alleged tortious acts of a state officer (deputy sheriff).
Foster v. Hampton 381 So. 2d 789 La. 1980
plaintiff, Edwin E. Foster, Jr., was held to have no cause of action against the Sheriff and Parish of East Baton Rouge.
Vanacor v. Amant 379 So. 2d 769 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
Notwithstanding Foster v. Hampton, La.1977, , and Foster v. Hampton, La.1980, , ruling that the State is the employer of a deputy sheriff, the State has provided by law for deputy sheriffs to be paid their salaries by the respective sheriffs for whom they are deputies.
Nolen v. State 377 So. 2d 586 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
our Supreme Court held that: “The statute [R.S.
Michaelman v. Amiss 376 So. 2d 1029 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
the Supreme Court reasoned that since a deputy sheriff is an officer of the State, "[t]he State, then, may be considered the deputy sheriff’s ‘employer.’ ” Thus, “the doctrine of respondeat superior might be available to hold the State vicariously liable.” ( ).
Foster v. Hampton 372 So. 2d 657 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
Whatley v. State 369 So. 2d 1125 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
1st Cir. 1977), affirmed and Nielson v. Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office, (La.App.
Tobin v. Jacobson 369 So. 2d 1161 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
to *1163 support her attack on the constitutionality of Section 1032.
Lambert v. Michel 364 So. 2d 248 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
Boyer v. St. Amant 364 So. 2d 1338 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
LeJeune v. Allstate Ins. Co. 365 So. 2d 471 La. 1978
LeJeune v. Allstate Ins. Co. 356 So. 2d 537 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1978