Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Carter v. CITY PARISH GOVERNMENT, ETC., 423 So. 2d 1080.

86 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
at 1161 (citing Carter v. City Parish Government, Etc., (La.
Tara Jefferson Robinson and Norrence Robinson, Individually and on Behalf of Their Minor Child, S.R. v. Daryl Mitchell La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2021
Gov’t of E. Baton Rouge, (La.
Khiry Cosey on Behalf of Her Minor Children, Corbin Hilliard and Allyssa Hilliard Individually and on Behalf of … La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2020
Gov’t of E. Baton Rouge, (La.
Marzell v. Charlyn Enterprises, LLC 215 So. 3d 405 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2017
After setting out the facts of the accident, procedural history, policy provisions and plaintiffs’ allegations, the court applied the “substantial factor” and “flow from the use” test laid out in Carter v. City Parish Gov’t of E. Baton Rouge, (La.
Sherri Arceneaux v. Amanda Arceneaux La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
the supreme court addressed “arising-out-of-use” provisions in insurance contracts.
Patterson v. Stephenson's Tree Service, LLC 110 So. 3d 614 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
He shows that to determine whether conduct “arises out of’ the use of an automobile, and thus is excluded from a CGL policy, courts use the two-prong test set out in Carter v. City Parish Gov’t of East Baton Rouge, : (1) was the conduct complained of a cause in fact of the harm?
Bernard v. Ellis 111 So. 3d 995 La. 2012
The Batiste decision appears to stem from a flawed application of this Court’s and Kessler v. Arnica Mut.
Batiste v. Dunn 68 So. 3d 673 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
J.R.A. Inc. v. Essex Insurance Co. 72 So. 3d 862 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
Brooks v. State *877 Farm Mutual Automobile Ins.
Baker v. Hurst 50 So. 3d 215 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
the Supreme Court established the analysis to be used in determining whether an accident arose out of the “use” of an automobile.
Alice Mabel Crews v. Broussard Plumbing and Heating La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
Crews v. BROUSSARD PLUMBING AND HEATING 38 So. 3d 1097 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
1 Cir. 1990), citing Carter v. City Parish Gov’t of East Baton Rouge
Corrina Mae Bruno v. Richard Davis La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
Plaintiff asserts the Louisiana Supreme Court’s sets forth the test for determining “use” of an automobile.
Bruno v. Davis 31 So. 3d 633 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Plaintiff asserts the Louisiana Supreme Court’s sets forth the test for determining “use” of an automobile.
Geneva Vidrine v. Jason Lafleur La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
of EBR, McKenzie & Johnson, Insurance (15 La.Civil Law Treatise) § 65.
Vidrine v. LaFleur 979 So. 2d 609 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
of EBR, McKenzie & Johnson, Insurance (15 La.Civil Law Treatise) § 65.
Thomas v. Duncan 954 So. 2d 218 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
Carmouche v. Carmouche 940 So. 2d 761 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Ilean Carmouche v. Jeffery B. Carmouche La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Ursin v. Webb 945 So. 2d 734 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
the Supreme Court established the analysis to be used in determining whether an accident arose out of the "use" of an automobile.
Stebbins v. United Services Automobile Ass'n 871 So. 2d 508 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
The Supreme Court, in Carter v. City Parish Government, Etc., established a two part analysis to be used to determine if the “arising-out-of-use” provision of an uninsured motorist policy has been met.
Trammel v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance 811 So. 2d 78 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
4 Cir. 1/29/97) , , this court stated: (La.
Hollingsworth v. United Services Auto. Association 806 So. 2d 756 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
With respect to the second item, the "arising out of" requirement, the supreme court relied on the analysis set forth in Carter v. City Parish Government, Etc., in which the court held: The arising-out-of-use provision is designed to limit coverage to liability resulting from conduct of the insured which constitutes both a use of the vehicle and a legal cause of the injury.
Terminix Services v. State Farm Mut. Auto 803 So. 2d 198 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
the Supreme Court established the analysis to be used in determining whether an accident arose out of the "use" of an automobile.
Guilliams v. Succession of Harrel 774 So. 2d 325 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
Aucoin v. ABC Insurance Co. 773 So. 2d 166 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
See Carter v. City Parish Gov’t, Hobbs v. Rhodes, *169 95-1937 (La.App.
Holloway v. Midland Risk Ins. Co. 759 So. 2d 309 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
Turner v. Parish of Jefferson Through Dept. of Recreation 721 So. 2d 64 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
Gedward v. Sonnier 713 So. 2d 770 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
and Edwards v. Horstman, 96-1403 (La.2/25/97); , the Louisiana Supreme Court established the analysis to be used to determine whether an "arising out of the use" provision of the exclusions portion of an insuranc
Johnson v. Safeway Ins. Co. 694 So. 2d 411 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
Carter v. City Parish Government, Etc.
Edwards v. Horstman 687 So. 2d 1007 La. 1997
we established the analysis to be used in determining whether an "arising *1011 out of the use" provision has been satisfied.
Casso v. United Cabs, Inc. 688 So. 2d 180 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
Cross v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation & Development 670 So. 2d 1324 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
“Taken as a whole, circumstantial evidence must exclude, other reasonable hypotheses with a fair amount of certainty.”
Edwards v. Daugherty 670 So. 2d 220 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
Mahlum v. Baker 639 So. 2d 820 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
Jones v. Louisiana Timber Co., Inc.
Smith v. LOUISIANA HEALTH & HUMAN RES. 637 So. 2d 1177 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
Cantrelle v. State Farm General Insurance Co. 618 So. 2d 997 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
4 the court established the analysis to be used in determining whether an accident arose out of the “use” of an automobile.
Roberts v. Benoit 605 So. 2d 1032 La. 1992
Williams v. Galliano 601 So. 2d 769 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
The viability of the Sherville case as authority for future applications in the context of "arising out of" which, although not specifically addressing the ultimate conclusion made by the Sherville court, disapproved of the method of analysis the court employed.
Barber v. Lee 597 So. 2d 1163 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
Jones v. Louisiana Timber Co., Inc.
Willis v. Tipton 593 So. 2d 435 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
Smith v. Estrade 589 So. 2d 1158 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1991
Carter v. City Parish Government, Etc., (La.
Reeks v. Johnson 587 So. 2d 2 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
explained that “arising out of use” provisions are designed to limit coverage to liability resulting from conduct of the insured which constitutes both a use of the vehicle and a legal cause of the injury.
Slade v. Altex Ready-Mix Concrete Corp. 579 So. 2d 1102 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
Miller v. Everett 576 So. 2d 1162 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1991
542 , (1972); Cf. Carter v. City Parish Government, Etc., (La.
Manuel v. Luckett 577 So. 2d 203 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
Jones v. Louisiana Timber Co., Inc., (La.App.
Kessler v. Amica Mut. Ins. Co. 573 So. 2d 476 La. 1991
*478 This court in Carter v. City Parish Government, Etc., (La.
Clomon v. Monroe City School Bd. 572 So. 2d 571 La. 1991
Babin v. Burnside Terminal 577 So. 2d 90 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
Lee v. Missouri Pacific R. Co. 566 So. 2d 1052 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
They reach this conclusion by arguing that it is presumed that Lee would not have intentionally placed himself in the position of peril and would have obeyed any signal to stop before the crossing, (La.App.