Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Ermert v. Hartford Ins. Co., 559 So. 2d 467.

105 citing documents.

Fasullo v. Finley 782 So. 2d 76 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
Stokes v. Stewart 774 So. 2d 1215 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
Dickerson v. Piccadilly Restaurants, Inc. 785 So. 2d 842 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
Ermert v. Hartford Ins., Co., (La.
Griffin v. Kmart Corp. 776 So. 2d 1226 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
Timmons v. Silman 761 So. 2d 507 La. 2000
App.2d Cir.05/10/96), (Marvin, J., dissenting) ().
Louisiana Pacific Corp. v. Hyatt 758 So. 2d 295 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
Co., La.Civ.Code art. 2320.
Brasseaux v. Town of Mamou 752 So. 2d 815 La. 2000
Co., Baumeister, 673 So.2d at 998 .
Reed v. Employers Mutual Casualty Co. 741 So. 2d 1285 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
Tanner v. Reynolds Metals Co. 739 So. 2d 893 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
In reaching this conclusion
Hubbard v. Lakeland Nursing Home 734 So. 2d 1280 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
Dunmiles v. ST. CHARLES PARISH REC. DEPT. 726 So. 2d 485 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
Baumeister v. Plunkett, 95-2270 (La.5/21/96), .
Dyer v. Service Marine Industries, Inc. 723 So. 2d 1135 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
Russell v. Noullet 721 So. 2d 868 La. 1998
Hanson v. Benelli 719 So. 2d 627 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
Brasseaux v. Town of Mamou 713 So. 2d 742 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
Co., (citations omitted), the supreme court stated: The fact that the predominant motive of the servant is to benefit himself or a third person does not prevent the act from being within the scope of employment.
Harrington v. La. State Bd. of Elementary and Secondary Educ. 714 So. 2d 845 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
Morgan v. ABC MANUFACTURER 710 So. 2d 1077 La. 1998
Nelson v. Williams 707 So. 2d 436 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union No. 576 v. Bunting 707 So. 2d 132 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
Laborde v. Scottsdale Ins. Co. 704 So. 2d 247 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
Maze v. Grogan 694 So. 2d 1168 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
Emoakemeh v. Southern University, 94-1194 (La.App.
Stephens v. Bail Enforcement of Louisiana 690 So. 2d 124 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
Jackson v. Frisard 685 So. 2d 622 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
Michelet v. Scheuring SEC. Services Inc. 680 So. 2d 140 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
Walker v. Kroop 678 So. 2d 580 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
Baumeister v. Plunkett 673 So. 2d 994 La. 1996
Timmons v. Silman 675 So. 2d 287 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
Olivier v. Best Workover, Inc. 669 So. 2d 476 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1996
Patterson v. Al Copeland Enterprises, Inc. 667 So. 2d 1188 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
Baumeister v. Plunkett 661 So. 2d 510 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
Latullas v. State 658 So. 2d 800 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
: The fact that the predominant motive of the servant is to benefit himself or a third person does not prevent the act from being within the scope of employment.
Benoit v. Roche 657 So. 2d 574 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
Emoakemeh v. Southern University 654 So. 2d 474 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Ermert v. Hartford Insurance *477 Company
Fallon v. Sullivan 650 So. 2d 1232 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
Independent Fire Ins. v. Able Moving & Storage Co. 650 So. 2d 750 La. 1995
Massey v. Decca Drilling Co., Inc. 647 So. 2d 1196 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
Williams v. Tastee Donuts, Inc. 638 So. 2d 255 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
4 Cir.1992), writs denied at
Dismuke v. Quaynor 637 So. 2d 555 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
Whetstone v. Dixon 616 So. 2d 764 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
Orgeron v. McDonald 618 So. 2d 1041 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
Johnson v. Gantt 606 So. 2d 854 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
Roberts v. Benoit 605 So. 2d 1032 La. 1992
the dissent would have found that Benoit was acting within the scope of his employment by carrying a gun pursuant to his commission as a deputy.
Fox Industries, Inc. v. Francis 594 So. 2d 1094 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
“The word ‘servant’ does not exclusively denote a person rendering manual labor; rather, it includes anyone who performs continuous service for another and whose physical movements are subject to the control or right to control of the other as to the manner of performing the service.”
Samuels v. Southern Baptist Hosp. 594 So. 2d 571 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
Jones v. Briley 593 So. 2d 391 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
4th Cir.1988), rev'd which found that hunting friends were not vicariously liable for an accidental shooting if they were not guilty of any individual fault.
Ermert v. Hartford Ins. Co. 585 So. 2d 640 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
Urbeso v. Bryan 583 So. 2d 114 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
Urbeso v. Bryan 583 So. 2d 114 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
Guidry v. Federline 581 So. 2d 398 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1991
Co., wherein the Supreme Court of Louisiana *400 discussed at length legal principals applicable to juridical entities and found individual members of an unincorporated hunting club not liable in tort for injuries sustained by a person accidentally shot in the foot by a member of the hunting group.
Aaron v. New Orleans Riverwalk Ass'n 580 So. 2d 1119 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991