DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Stewart v. Schmieder, 386 So. 2d 1351.

45 citing documents.

  • Foret v. Caruso 194 So. 3d 643 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
  • Cochran v. Caruso 182 So. 3d 1173 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
  • Hanson v. Steven Caruso, Willow Creek, L.L.C. 182 So. 3d 1187 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
  • Faulkner v. McCarty Corp. 853 So. 2d 24 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
  • Misuraca v. City of Kenner 802 So. 2d 784 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
    In Hardy v. Bowie, 98-2821 (La.9/8/99), , the Louisiana Supreme Court, stated: *788 The public duty doctrine has been defined as follows: [I]f the duty which the official authority imposes upon an officer is a duty to the public, a failure to perform it, or an inadequate or erroneous performance, must be a public, not an individual injury, and must be redressed, if at all, in
  • Hardy v. Bowie 744 So. 2d 606 La. 1999
  • Cormier v. THE Ins. Co. 745 So. 2d 1 La. 1999
    Although the validity of the Public Duty Doctrine has remained somewhat speculative in the lower courts, rejected the doctrine.
  • Criticized Shepard v. Bradford 721 So. 2d 1049 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
  • Hardy v. Bowie 719 So. 2d 1158 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
    The public duty doctrine, the wholesale, categorical rule that a governmental entity owes no duty to an individual where its undertakings are for the general public good
  • Cormier v. THE Ins. Co. 716 So. 2d 387 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
  • Boguille v. Chambers 685 So. 2d 582 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    See, Kramer v. Continental Cas.
  • Harris v. Godwin 671 So. 2d 1278 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
  • Criticized Moore v. Esponge 651 So. 2d 962 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
  • Kramer v. Continental Cas. Co. 641 So. 2d 557 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
    Commenting on the "public duty doctrine," (La.
  • Dubroc v. Allstate Ins. Co. 633 So. 2d 861 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
    The Louisiana Supreme Court carefully examined the "public duty doctrine"
  • Frick v. City of New Orleans, Department of Safety & Permits 629 So. 2d 1304 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
    in which the Supreme Court held that the Parish of Baton Rouge was liable for damages to workmen injured while engaged in construction of a building.
  • Berry v. STATE THROUGH DHHR 625 So. 2d 600 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
  • Simeon v. Doe 618 So. 2d 848 La. 1993
  • Kniepp v. City of Shreveport 609 So. 2d 1163 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
    1990), rejected the old public duty doctrine stating: " holding that a public agency may be held liable for a breach of a duty owed to the general public."
  • Sunlake Apartment Residents v. Tonti Development Corp. 602 So. 2d 22 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1992
    See also, (1st Cir.1984), writ denied , ; Sunlake Apts.
  • MacK v. City of Monroe 595 So. 2d 353 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
  • Persilver v. Louisiana Department of Transportation 592 So. 2d 1344 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
    examined the public duty doctrine.
  • Chance v. STATE, DOTD 567 So. 2d 683 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
    Stewart v. Schmieder, supra [ ]."
  • Guidry v. AIRPORT AUTH. FOR AIRPORT DIST. NO. 1 558 So. 2d 300 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
  • Nichols v. Nichols 556 So. 2d 876 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
  • Fowler v. Roberts 556 So. 2d 1 La. 1990
    the court first pointed out that a public agency may be held liable for a breach of duty owed to the general public.
  • Zeagler v. Town of Jena 556 So. 2d 978 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
    The Louisiana Supreme Court carefully examined the "public duty doctrine"
  • Talamo v. Johnston 554 So. 2d 800 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
    In reaching this decision, (citing the almost universally accepted authority on the "public duty doctrine," Cooley on Torts, 4th Ed., § 300 at p. 385), states: "The rule of official responsibility, then, appears to be this: That if the duty which the official authority imposes upon an officer is a duty to the public, a failure t
  • O'Neill v. Habeney 554 So. 2d 800 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
    In reaching this decision, (citing the" almost universally accepted authority on the “public duty doctrine,” Cooley on Torts, 4th Ed., § 300 at p. 385), states: “The rule of official responsibility, then, appears to be this: That if the duty which the official authority imposes upon an officer is a duty to the public, a failure
  • Criticized Winstead v. Ed's Live Catfish & Seafood, Inc. 554 So. 2d 1237 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
  • Thomas v. State 545 So. 2d 632 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
  • Herberg v. Dixon 531 So. 2d 532 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
    Although the parish argues in brief that it is not urging absence of duty predicated upon the public duty doctrine; nevertheless, and our recent explanation of an exception to the doctrine in Sunlake Apt.
  • Fowler v. Roberts 526 So. 2d 266 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
    holding that a public agency may be held liable for a breach of a duty owed to the general public.
  • Explained Sunlake Apartment Residents v. Tonti Development Corp. 522 So. 2d 1298 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
    Appellants argue that the public duty doctrine as explained in Dufrene v. Guarino, supra , is inapplicable in the instant case, is controlling.
  • Kyle v. City of Bogalusa 506 So. 2d 719 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
    4th Cir.1977), writ denied, (La.
  • Kendrick v. City of Lake Charles 500 So. 2d 866 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
  • Williams v. Southfield School, Inc. 494 So. 2d 1339 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
  • Hanks v. Calcasieu Parish Police Jury 479 So. 2d 1010 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    “The court does not find any negligence on the part of defendant Calcasieu Parish Police Jury which would constitute a proximate cause of damages sustained.” in support of his contention that the failure of a political subdivision to follow procedures which it sets out for itself in the administration of a regulatory ordinance can constitute fault under La.C.C.
  • Lott v. Landor 452 So. 2d 1266 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
  • Wright v. Louisiana Power & Light 433 So. 2d 796 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1983
  • Blanchard v. 12055 Airline Corp. 432 So. 2d 328 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • Smith on Behalf of Smith v. City of Kenner 428 So. 2d 1171 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1983
    where the Supreme Court took up the applicability of the public duty doctrine.
  • Patin v. Industrial Enterprises, Inc. 421 So. 2d 362 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    However, plaintiff-appellant argues that the duty of the City-Parish is broader and includes a duty to secure the necessary safeguards to ensure safety to the public during construction, citing Section 103.1 of the Building Code [1] and Stewart v. Schmieder, *365
  • Mobley v. Rego Co. 412 So. 2d 1143 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
    at page 1357: The "Public Duty Doctrine" has come under considerable attack in recent years.
  • McNeal v. DIVISION OF STATE POLICE, ETC. 412 So. 2d 1123 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    A recent decision of the Louisiana Supreme Court, (1980), found in a case involving the wrongful death of workmen injured when a building collapsed as a result of a faulty or non-existent building inspection, that there had been a breach of a duty owed a particular class of citizens, viz, construction workmen, and that, therefore, it was unnecessary to determine whet