DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

86 citing documents.

  • Williams v. Markel Lumber Co. 566 So. 2d 446 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
    Carter v. City Parish Government, etc., (La.
  • Daniels v. Dauphine 557 So. 2d 1062 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
  • Lejeune v. Rayne Branch Hosp. 556 So. 2d 559 La. 1990
  • Massey v. Century Ready Mix Corp. 552 So. 2d 565 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
    Shortly after Picou , the Louisiana Supreme Court provided a two-prong test to be used in analyzing whether conduct arises out of the use of an automobile under an automobile liability policy.
  • Alford v. Estate of Zanca 552 So. 2d 7 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
    Carter v. City Parish Government, Etc.
  • LP v. Oubre 547 So. 2d 1320 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
    542 , (1972); Cf. Carter v. City Parish Government, Etc.
  • Dowe v. Grady 540 So. 2d 1040 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
  • Pitre v. Opelousas General Hosp. 530 So. 2d 1151 La. 1988
    See, e.g., PPG Industries, Hill v. Lundin and Assoc., Inc., 260 La.
  • Currera v. Loyd 531 So. 2d 544 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
    1986), and in support of its ruling that the use of a taxicab was only incidental to the injuries sustained by a plaintiff and therefore no coverage existed under an automobile liability policy, said at pages 419-20: In Carter v. City Parish Government, Etc., the Louisiana Supreme Court stated that "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."
  • Presley v. Smith 527 So. 2d 1095 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
    * In Carter v. City Parish Gov’t, the court stated that when a plaintiff uses circumstantial evidence to prove causation, taken as a whole the evidence must exclude other reasonable hypotheses with a fair amount of certainly.
  • Jones v. Louisiana Timber Co., Inc. 519 So. 2d 333 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
    of EBR, McKenzie & Johnson, Insurance (15 La.Civil Law Treatise) § 65.
  • Bowles v. Litton Industries, Inc. 518 So. 2d 1070 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1987
    See also W. Prosser, Torts, [3d ed.] § 41, p. 246; Carter v. City-Parish Government, etc., Naquin v. Marquette Casualty Company, 244 La.
  • Melerine v. State 505 So. 2d 79 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
    Dufrene v. Dixie Auto Ins.
  • Foster v. Lafayette Ins. Co. 504 So. 2d 82 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
  • Hellmers v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSP. & DEVELOPMENT 503 So. 2d 174 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
    The most recent Supreme Court *179
  • McFarland v. Industrial Helicopters, Inc. 502 So. 2d 593 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
    1st Cir.1975), writ denied, Carter v. City Parish Government, Etc., rehearing denied; Frank v. Great Am.
  • Bourgeois v. Lake Development Corp. 498 So. 2d 77 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    Carter v. City Parish Government, Etc.
  • Moore v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 499 So. 2d 146 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
  • Forest v. STATE EX REL. LOUISIANA DEPT. OF TRANSP. AND DEV. 493 So. 2d 563 La. 1986
  • Blue v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 493 So. 2d 701 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
  • Lucey v. Harris 490 So. 2d 416 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
    In Carter v. City Parish Government, Etc., the Louisiana Supreme Court stated that "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."
  • Mitchell v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. 488 So. 2d 1089 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
    Carter v. City Parish Government, Etc., Hill v. Lundin & Associates, Inc., 260 La.
  • Gilvin v. Arabi Cab Co. 483 So. 2d 159 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
    See Carter v. City Parish Government, et al
  • McDaniel v. Rockwell International Corp. 477 So. 2d 808 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    Sharp, however, correctly urges that the test for per se negligence also includes the additional factors of causation and resulting injury
  • Robertson v. Penn 472 So. 2d 927 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    Carter v. City Parish Government of East Baton Rouge, et al.
  • Turner v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America 472 So. 2d 43 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    See also, W. Prosser, Torts [3d ed.]§ 41, p. 246; Carter v. City-Parish Government, etc., Naquin v. Marquette Casualty Company, 244 La.
  • Green v. DeFelice 466 So. 2d 1373 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
    NOTES [1] The elaborate "arising-out-of-use" test enunciated in Baudin was disapproved in Carter v. City Parish Government, Etc., (La.
  • Topole v. Eidson 464 So. 2d 406 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    the Louisiana Supreme Court held the "arising-out-of-use" provision requires the court to answer two separate questions: (1) was the conduct of the insured of which the plaintiff complains a legal cause of the injury?
  • MAYOR & COUNCIL ETC. v. Jesse J. Fontenot 460 So. 2d 685 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
  • Criticized Tolleson v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. 449 So. 2d 105 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    [2] The elaborate "arising-out-of-use" test enunciated in Baudin was disapproved in Carter v. City Parish Government, Etc. (La.
  • Boothe v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. 447 So. 2d 620 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
  • Wilson v. Chart House, Inc. 442 So. 2d 1263 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    Hill v. Lundin Associates, Inc., 260 La.
  • Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. SHAMROCK CONST. CO., INC. 441 So. 2d 379 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1983
    See also Carter v. The City Parish Government of East Baton Rouge, et al
  • Ketcher v. Illinois Central Gulf R. Co. 440 So. 2d 805 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • Williams v. E.J. Hull Electric Co. 433 So. 2d 1097 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    See, Carter v. City Parish Government of East Baton *1100 Rouge
  • Wright v. O'NEAL 427 So. 2d 852 La. 1983