DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Ratcliff v. Town of Mandeville, 502 So. 2d 566.

21 citing documents.

  • Shelly Benoit v. City of Lake Charles La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    5 Cir. 1987) and a recreational area within a populated city near a residential area of a 3 have not been immunized areas.
  • Benoit v. City of Lake Charles 907 So. 2d 931 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    5 Cir.1987) and a recreational area within a populated city near a residential area of a have not been immunized areas.
  • Loforte v. Wayne Estay Shrimp Co., Inc. 870 So. 2d 1171 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
    In Keelen v. State, Department of Culture, Recreation and Tourism, (La.
  • Domingue v. Stanley 784 So. 2d 844 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
    the supreme court stated: This court has described two factors to consider when determining whether the immunity provided by R.S.
  • Kieff v. Louisiana Land & Exploration Co. 779 So. 2d 85 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    this Court enunciated certain prerequisites to the applicability of recreational use immunity: First, the property where the injury occurred must be an undeveloped, nonresidential rural or semi-rural land area.
  • Johnson v. City of Morgan City 787 So. 2d 326 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
  • Naquin v. Louisiana Power & Light Co. 768 So. 2d 605 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    9:2795, [3] this court applies the following *608 three-part test developed by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Keelen v. State, Department of Culture, Recreation and Tourism
  • Ebarb v. Guinn Bros., Inc. 728 So. 2d 487 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    Ebarb v. Guinn Bros., supra .
  • Deumite v. State 692 So. 2d 1127 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
    1st Cir.1989), and Keelen.
  • Ebarb v. Guinn Bros. Inc. 691 So. 2d 228 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
    Keelen v. State, Department of Culture, Recreation and Tourism
  • Verdin v. LOUISIANA LAND AND EXPLOR. 693 So. 2d 162 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
    For example, the Louisiana Supreme Court, stated as follows: This court has described two factors to consider when determining whether the immunity provided by R.S.
  • Price v. Exxon Corp. 664 So. 2d 1273 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
    1 Cir.1986), reversed on other grounds, that recreational use immunity provisions as applied to the State do not violate the sovereign immunity proscription, as all owners of non-commercial recreational lands are treated alike.
  • Lewis v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 654 So. 2d 883 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
    Second, the injury must be the result of recreation that can be pursued in the “true outdoors.” Keelen v. State, Dep’t of Culture, Recreation and Tourism
  • Socorro v. Orleans Levee Bd. 561 So. 2d 739 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
  • Singletary v. Crown Zellerbach 554 So. 2d 846 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
    Keelen v. State, Department of Culture, Recreation and Tourism
  • Distinguished Monteville v. Terrebonne Parish Consolidated Government 554 So. 2d 692 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
    distinguishable on the basis of the facts involved in the locale requirement.
  • Ratcliff v. Town of Mandeville 551 So. 2d 761 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
  • Castille v. Chaisson 544 So. 2d 670 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
  • Broussard v. Dept. of Transp. & Dev. 539 So. 2d 824 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
  • Ermert v. Hartford Ins. Co. 531 So. 2d 506 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
  • Cheneau ex rel. Sanders v. Apostolic Outreach Center 529 So. 2d 149 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
    s developed the following two-part test for determining whether the statutory immunity described by the above statute applies to a given situation: (1) Whether the property where the injury occurred is “an undeveloped, nonresidential rural or semi-rural land area” and (2) Whether the injury itself resulted from recreation that can be pursued in the “true outdoors.” Keelen, supra, 463 So.2d at 1290 .