Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Reed v. House of Decor, Inc., 468 So. 2d 1159.

49 citing documents.

Eva James Irving v. Our Lady of Wisdom Health Center La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2025
Orgeron, 93-1353, pp. 4-5, 639 So.2d at 227 (citing Reed v. House of Decor, Inc., ).
Lionel Jones and Willie Wilson v. Maryland Casualty Company, Zurich American Insurance Company, Powell's Cable Company and Karen … La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2022
Reed v. House of Decor, Inc., see also W. Page Keeton et al., Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts § 70 (5th ed. 1984).
Brian Mullen v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2021
discussed the main principles governing master-servant liability: Determination of the course and scope of employment is largely based on policy.
Wade Conner v. Klarc Lemelle La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2020
wherein, the court articulated the overarching principle governing master-servant liability: Determination of the course and scope of employment is largely based on policy.
Bequnkie Bergeron and Dasha Bergeron v. Eliza Martinez, Josie Villaloro, Courtney Ramsay Kylie Ramsay, Indv. and D/B/A Pharview … La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2020
Reed v. House of Decor, Inc.
Richey v. Miller 247 So. 3d 964 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
Reed v. House of Decor, Inc. , , 1162 (La.
Johnson v. Transit Mgmt. of Se. La., Inc. 239 So. 3d 973 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
Orgeron , 93-1353 at pp. 4-5, 639 So.2d at 227 (citing Reed v. House of Decor, Inc. , (La.
Lemmon v. de la Mora 215 So. 3d 264 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
Reed v. House of Decor, Inc., (La.
Darius M. Jack v. Ralph A. McFarland La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
7/5/94), Reed v. House of Décor, Inc.
Jack v. McFarland 175 So. 3d 1169 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
Orgeron on Behalf of Orgeron v. McDonald, 93-1353 (La.7/5/94), ; Reed v. House of Décor, Inc.
Hopper v. Austin 163 So. 3d 8 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
Orgeron, supra; Reed v. House of Decor, Inc.
Migliore v. Gill 81 So. 3d 900 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
Reed v. House of Decor, Inc.
Claudia Annette Senac v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
In Orgeron, the supreme court reiterated several factors it had previously identified in Reed v. House of Decor, Inc., which must be considered when determining whether a tort was committed within the course and 4 scope of an employee’s employment.
Senac v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 22 So. 3d 1124 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
In Orgeron , the supreme court reiterated several factors it had previously identified in Reed v. House of Decor, Inc., which must be considered when determining whether a tort was committed within the course and [ flScope of an employee’s employment.
Wolfe v. TOWN OF HOMER 11 So. 3d 39 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
Reed v. House of Decor, Inc.
Scott Hargrave, Et Ux. v. Cecil J. Delaughter La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
Hargrave v. Delaughter 10 So. 3d 245 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
wherein, the court articulated the overarching principle governing master-servant liability: Determination of the course and scope of employment is largely based on policy.
Davis v. Green 5 So. 3d 291 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
Flint v. Trolley Stop 843 So. 2d 635 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
In the application of Article 2320, an employer’s vicarious liability for conduct not his own extends only to the employee’s tortious conduct, which is within the course and scope of employment.” Reed v. House of Decor, Inc.
Strain v. Williams 835 So. 2d 618 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
McDonald , 93-1353 at pp. 4-5, 639 So.2d at 227 ; accord Reed v. House of Decor, Inc.
Bailey v. Mayes 784 So. 2d 834 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
Reed v. House of Decor, Inc.
Johnson v. Templeton 768 So. 2d 65 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
Reed v. House of Decor, Inc.
Robinson v. Simmons Co. 762 So. 2d 112 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
Reed v. House of Decor, Inc.
Freeman v. Hutson 738 So. 2d 148 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
[Citing Reed v. House of Decor, Inc. ] Michaleski v. Western Preferred Cas.
Wright v. Skate Country, Inc. 734 So. 2d 874 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
Id., 639 So.2d at 227 , citing Reed v. House of Decor, Inc., (La.
Delphin v. Montealegre 732 So. 2d 757 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
Reed v. House of Decor, Inc.
Hanson v. Benelli 719 So. 2d 627 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
Id., 639 So.2d at 227 , citing Reed v. House of Decor, Inc.
Landry v. Fincke 714 So. 2d 826 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
In Reed v. House of Decor, Inc., the Louisiana Supreme Court set forth several factors to consider when determining whether an employee's tortious conduct is employment-rooted.
Washington v. Avondale Industries, Inc. 708 So. 2d 1254 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
Reed v. House of Decor, Inc., see also W. Page Keeton et al., Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts Sec.
Soileau v. D & J Tire, Inc. 702 So. 2d 818 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
Reed v. House of Decor, Inc.
Hawthorn v. City of Bossier City 697 So. 2d 680 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
See Baumeister v. Plunkett, 95-2270 (La.5/21/96) ; Reed v. House of Decor, Inc.
Bolton v. Tulane University of Louisiana 692 So. 2d 1113 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
Reed v. House of Decor, Inc., Michaleski, 472 So.2d at 21.
Landreneau v. Fruge 676 So. 2d 701 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
7/5/94); , citing Reed v. House of Decor, Inc.
Norlander v. Illinois National Insurance Co. 672 So. 2d 1066 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
Reed v. House of Decor, Inc.
McLain v. Safeway Insurance 662 So. 2d 837 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
Reed v. House of Decor, Inc.
Pappas v. Marine Spill Response Corp. 650 So. 2d 441 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
and the reasonable | expectation of the employer that the employee would perform the act.’ Reed v. House of Decor, Inc., at 1161 (La., 1985); LSA-C.C.
Orgeron on Behalf of Orgeron v. McDonald 639 So. 2d 224 La. 1994
Reed v. House of Decor, Inc., see also W. Page Keeton et al., Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts § 70 (5th ed. 1984).
Avery v. Commercial Union Ins. Co. 621 So. 2d 184 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
Generally, in this connection, see Reed v. House of Decor, Inc., (La.
Medine v. Johnson 600 So. 2d 1373 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
the Louisiana Supreme Court in discussing when a tort-feasor is within the course and scope of his employment stated: Whether a party is liable for the act of a [tort-feasor] on the basis that the [tort-feasor] was the party's employee in the course and scope of employment depends upon the proof and assessm
Barnes v. Thames 578 So. 2d 1155 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
Id, However, in considering this issue the following observations made by the Supreme Court in Reed v. House of Decor, Inc., should be borne in mind.
Roger v. Dufrene 553 So. 2d 1106 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
Reed v. House of Decor, Inc. -62 (La.1985).
Egan v. Hullinghorst Industries, Inc. 537 So. 2d 1226 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
Wall v. Brown & Root, Inc. 535 So. 2d 486 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
and the reasonable expectation of the employer that the employee would perform the act.” (citing Reed v. Home of Decor, Inc., (La.
Pierce v. Ellis 519 So. 2d 251 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
In Reed v. House of Decor, Inc., our Supreme Court stated the rule as follows: Among the factors to be weighed in determining an employer’s responsibility for the tort of an employee are: “the time, place and purpose of the act in relation to service of the employer, the relationship between the employee’s act and the employer’s business .
Nelson v. Ronquillo 517 So. 2d 454 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
In Reed v. House of Decor, Inc., it was held that an occasional employee of the House of Decor, Inc. was not acting in the course of his employment so as to render the corporation liable in tort.
Whittington v. American Oil Co. 508 So. 2d 180 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
4th Cir., 1984), writ granted, affirmed
Gordon v. Commercial Union Insurance Company 503 So. 2d 190 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
at 21, citing Reed v. House of Decor, Inc.
Torres v. US Fidelity and Guar. Co. 499 So. 2d 1293 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
at 21, citing Reed v. House of Decor, Inc.
Michaleski v. Western Preferred Cas. Co. 472 So. 2d 18 La. 1985
Reed v. House of Decor, Inc., at 1161 (La., 1985); LSA-C.C.