DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Picou v. Ferrara, 412 So. 2d 1297.

28 citing documents.

  • Katty Calderon, Natural Mother of the Decedent, Avril Sanabria Versus Lezly Sanabria, Suly Sanabria, Jonathan Rivera, Abc Insurance … La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2022
    And Smith,…has been criticized by noted legal commentators, 15 William Shelby McKenzie & H. Alston Johnson, III, Louisiana Civil Law Treatise § 72 (1996), and, the reasoning therein, (La.
  • Lewis v. Jabbar 5 So. 3d 250 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    7 *257 is applicable to this case.
  • Simmons v. Weiymann 943 So. 2d 423 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
    The Fourth Circuit held that the automobile use exclusion barred coverage, because the use of the motor vehicle was an essential element of the plaintiffs' theory of liability, and Calvin v. Janbar Enterprises, Inc., 03-0382 (La.App.
  • Howell v. Ferry Transp., Inc. 929 So. 2d 226 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
  • Otwell v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. 914 So. 2d 100 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
    LeJeune v. Allstate Ins.
  • Calvin v. Janbar Enterprises, Inc. 856 So. 2d 88 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
  • Dingler v. ZURICH COMMERICAL INS. CO. 833 So. 2d 524 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
    and Oaks v. Dupuy, 26,729 (La.App.
  • Fleniken v. Entergy Corp. 790 So. 2d 64 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    See MCKENZIE and JOHNSON § 65, p. 187, -1300 (La.1982) (the automobile use exclusion of defendant's general liability insurance applied because the use of an automobile by an employee on an errand for his employer was an essential element in the negligent entrustment theory of liability and in the vicarious liability theory for the negligence of the e
  • Guilliams v. Succession of Harrel 774 So. 2d 325 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    LeJeune v. Allstate Ins.
  • Holloway v. Midland Risk Ins. Co. 759 So. 2d 309 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    See Carter v. City Parish Government of East Baton Rouge, supra ; Jones v. Louisiana Timber Co., Inc., (La.App.
  • Gedward v. Sonnier 713 So. 2d 770 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
  • Jacob v. Bellsouth Telecommunications, Inc. 712 So. 2d 266 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    And Smith , while seemingly supporting respondent’s position (absent the additional supervision exclusion) has been criticized by noted legal commentators, 15 William Shelby McKenzie & H. Alston Johnson, III, Louisiana Civil Law Treatise § 72 (1996), and, the reasoning therein
  • Edwards v. Horstman 687 So. 2d 1007 La. 1997
    LeJeune v. Allstate Ins.
  • Oaks v. Dupuy 653 So. 2d 165 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
  • Yagel v. Sanders 653 So. 2d 170 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
  • Mahlum v. Baker 639 So. 2d 820 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
  • Reason v. Miller's Casualty Insurance 615 So. 2d 562 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
  • Barber v. Lee 597 So. 2d 1163 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
  • Smith v. Estrade 589 So. 2d 1158 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1991
    Lucey v. Harris, supra; Fertitta v. Palmer, supra; see also, LeJeune v. Allstate Ins.
  • Manuel v. Luckett 577 So. 2d 203 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
  • Sarp v. US Fidelity & Guar. Co. 572 So. 2d 158 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
    the supreme court distinguished the independent negligence theory, where the use of the automobile may be an essential fact of the accident but is not an essential component of the theory of liability, from allegations of negligent entrustment of an automobile.
  • Massey v. Century Ready Mix Corp. 552 So. 2d 565 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
  • Currera v. Loyd 531 So. 2d 544 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
  • N. Cent. Util. v. E. Columbia Water Dist. 516 So. 2d 1268 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
    4th Cir.1981), reversed on other grounds
  • Siat v. Fauria 494 So. 2d 1224 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
    in which the Supreme Court upheld a provision in the defendant's employer's policy excluding liability for injuries arising out of the use of an automobile by any person in the course of his employment, even though one cause of the injury might have been negligent entrustment by the employer and another mig
  • Thomas v. Estate of Grunsten 492 So. 2d 201 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
  • Lucey v. Harris 490 So. 2d 416 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
  • Grieshaber v. Marcotte 454 So. 2d 305 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    which, as appellee points out in his brief to this court, was decided subsequently to Dofflemeyer.