DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Daniels v. Conn, 382 So. 2d 945.

43 citing documents.

  • Romano v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. 221 So. 3d 176 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
    The only remedy available to a solidary obligor from whom the whole performance was sought was to seek “contribution” from the joint tortfeasors in the amount of the joint tortfeasor’s “virile share.” (La.
  • Clark v. GB Cooley Service 813 So. 2d 1273 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
    3d Cir.3/27/96), , writ denied, 96-1040 (La.5/31/96)
  • Fincher v. State, Dept. of Health & Hosp. 691 So. 2d 844 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
    See, writ ref'd (1979); (La.App.
  • Jones v. STATE EX REL. DEPT. OF HEALTH AND HOSP. 671 So. 2d 1074 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
    a case in which Pinecrest was also a defendant: A hospital is bound to exercise the requisite amount of care toward a patient that the particular patient's condition may require.
  • Weatherford v. Commercial Union Ins. 650 So. 2d 763 La. 1995
  • Washington v. Reed 624 So. 2d 465 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
  • Barnes v. Thames 578 So. 2d 1155 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
  • Williams v. Markel Lumber Co. 566 So. 2d 446 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
  • Roger v. Dufrene 553 So. 2d 1106 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
  • Castille v. All American Ins. Co. 550 So. 2d 334 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
  • Wall v. Brown & Root, Inc. 535 So. 2d 486 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
    However, the specific question that must be determined is whether the employee’s conduct “was so closely connected in time, place and causation to his employment duties as to be regarded a risk of harm fairly attributable to the employer’s business, as compared with conduct by purely personal considerations entirely extraneous to the employer’s interest.”
  • Shackleford v. State ex rel. Department of Health & Human Resources 534 So. 2d 38 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
    Mr. Shackleford contends that the trial court: (1) with respect to mentally retarded patients in the State of Louisiana to the facts of this case; and, (2) committed mani *40 fest error.
  • Shackleford v. STATE EX REL. DHHR 534 So. 2d 38 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
    Mr. Shackleford contends that the trial court: (1) with respect to mentally retarded patients in the State of Louisiana to the facts of this case; and, (2) committed manifest *40 error.
  • Austin v. Pascarelli 522 So. 2d 1206 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
    The specific inquiry is whether the employee’s tor-tious conduct “was so closely connected in time, place and causation to his employment duties as to be regarded a risk of harm fairly attributable to the employer’s business, as compared with conduct motivated by purely personal considerations entirely extraneous to the employer’s interest.”
  • Pierce v. Ellis 519 So. 2d 251 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
  • Hebert v. Witherington 520 So. 2d 1075 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
  • Siemann v. Teston 517 So. 2d 242 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
    1st Cir.1986), writ denied, (La.App.
  • Mattingly v. State, Dept. of Health 509 So. 2d 82 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
  • Toomer v. Cash 506 So. 2d 165 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
    The specific question that must be determined is whether the employee’s conduct “was so closely connected in time, place and causation to his employment duties as to be regarded a risk of harm fairly attributable to the employer’s business, as compared with conduct motivated by purely personal considerations entirely extraneous to the employer’s interests.” Johnson v. Dufrene, supra.
  • Maxwell v. State, Department of Transportaiton & Development 499 So. 2d 681 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
  • Torres v. US Fidelity and Guar. Co. 499 So. 2d 1293 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
    Johnson v. Dufrene, supra .
  • Hills v. American Waste & Pollution Control Co. 488 So. 2d 1244 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
  • Taylor v. Dupree 484 So. 2d 986 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
  • Marshall v. Beno Truck Equipment, Inc. 481 So. 2d 1022 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    Moreover, this court restricted the use of inability to pay rule by preventing its application to joint tortfeasors where one joint tortfeasor was solvent.
  • Diaz v. Allstate Insurance Co. 480 So. 2d 995 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    Applying these principles to the facts before us we cannot conclude that Donnelly was in the course and scope of his employment.
  • Malmay v. Sizemore 474 So. 2d 1358 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
  • Rodriguez v. Traylor 468 So. 2d 1186 La. 1985
    Moreover, this court restricted the use of inability to pay rule by preventing its application to joint tortfeasors where one joint tortfeasor was solvent.
  • Taylor v. CHARITY HOSP. OF LOUISIANA 466 So. 2d 736 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
  • Brown v. Vince 464 So. 2d 1012 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    in Le-Brane, supra, at p. 218, that the proper inquiry is whether the employee’s tortious conduct “was closely related in time, place and causation to his employment duties as to be regarded a risk of harm fairly attributable to the employer’s business, as compared with conduct motivated by purely personal considerations entirely extraneous to the employer’s interests.”
  • Watson v. Ben 459 So. 2d 230 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
  • Puccio v. Finch 454 So. 2d 272 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
  • Johnson v. Dufrene 433 So. 2d 1109 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
  • Austen v. Sherwood 425 So. 2d 818 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
  • Faust v. Mendoza 415 So. 2d 371 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    The proper test for determining whether or not an employee was acting within the scope of his employment in a as follows: "[T]he inquiry is whether the employee's tortious conduct `was so closely connected in time, place and causation to his employment duties as to be regarded a risk of harm fairly attributable to the employer's business, as compared with conduct motivated by purely personal considerations enti
  • Bialy v. STATE, THROUGH DEPT. OF TRANSP. AND DEV. 414 So. 2d 1273 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
  • Hardy v. State, Through Dept. of Highways 404 So. 2d 981 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
  • Burns v. Fernandez 401 So. 2d 1033 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
    A wherein the court indicated that: "....
  • Ewing v. Sanson 394 So. 2d 849 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
  • Taylor v. Lumpkin 391 So. 2d 74 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
    In a comparatively recent case the Louisiana Supreme Court, stated that in a determination of the question of whether the employee is on a mission for the employer, the inquiry is whether the employee's tortious conduct was "so closely connected in time, place and causation to his employment duties as to be regarded a risk of harm fairly attributable to the employer
  • Suhor v. Gusse 388 So. 2d 755 La. 1980
    Recently, we considered the application of the inability to pay rule where joint tortfeasors are liable in solido.
  • Hebert v. Ordoyne 388 So. 2d 407 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
  • McGrew v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 385 So. 2d 1276 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
  • Lawes v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 387 So. 2d 1200 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    Were it not for our finding above that the city is not liable and is therefore not a joint tortfeasor, we would agree with the city's contention that the trial court erred in limiting the liability of the Mathernes under the "inability to pay" , Nos. 66104 and 66416 on the Docket of the Supreme Court (1980).