Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Monteville v. Terrebonne Par. Con. Gov't, 567 So. 2d 1097.

78 citing documents.

Craig v. Sepulvado 709 So. 2d 229 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
Government, the supreme court held a landowner "who does not evidence an intent to permit the public to enter without charge for recreational use may not invoke the recreational use statute's protective benefits against liability."
Theriot v. Midland Risk Ins. Co. 694 So. 2d 184 La. 1997
Deumite v. State 692 So. 2d 1127 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
Ebarb v. Guinn Bros. Inc. 691 So. 2d 228 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
Verdin v. LOUISIANA LAND AND EXPLOR. 693 So. 2d 162 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
Louisiana Farms v. LA. Dept. of Wildlife 685 So. 2d 1086 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
Ward v. Hermitage Ins. Co. 671 So. 2d 1229 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
: The stated goal of the Recreational Use Statutes is "to encourage owners of land to make land and water area available to the public for recreational purposes by limiting their liability toward persons entering thereon for such purposes."
Dear v. Crosby Chemicals, Inc. 670 So. 2d 775 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
Deumite v. State 668 So. 2d 727 La. 1996
Gov’t, (Marcus, Lemmon & Cole, JJ., concurring).
Lewis v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 654 So. 2d 883 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Gov’t, the court explained that the purpose of the recreational use statutes is “to encourage owners of land to make land and water areas available to the public for recreational purposes by limiting their liability toward persons entering thereon for such purposes.” Jurisprudence has established a test to d
Johnson v. Lloyd's of London 653 So. 2d 226 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
: *229 The stated goal of the Recreational Use Statutes is "to encourage owners of land to make land and water area available to the public for recreational purposes by limiting their liability toward persons entering thereon for such purposes."
Bourque v. Bailey 643 So. 2d 236 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
Hutchinson v. Patel 637 So. 2d 415 La. 1994
Branch v. Willis-Knighton Medical Center 636 So. 2d 211 La. 1994
Gov't, (and authorities cited therein); (La.
Kelty v. Brumfield 633 So. 2d 1210 La. 1994
O'QUINN v. Power House Services, Inc. 633 So. 2d 707 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
Campbell v. Pasternack Holding Co., Inc. 625 So. 2d 477 La. 1993
Chamberlain v. State, Through DOTD 624 So. 2d 874 La. 1993
Art. XII, § 10(A) (emphasis supplied)
Matter of Carline Tank Services, Inc. 627 So. 2d 669 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
Ronald Adams Contractor, Inc. v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation & Development, Truck Permit Section 619 So. 2d 1180 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
(holding that recreational use statutes, which limit the duties of landowners, are in derogation of common or natural rights and must be strictly construed).
Rodriguez v. Louisiana Medical Mut. Ins. Co. 618 So. 2d 390 La. 1993
Thibodeau v. Mayor and Councilmen of Morgan City 619 So. 2d 595 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
the supreme court held the recreational immunity statutes did not apply to public lands.
Touchard v. Williams 617 So. 2d 885 La. 1993
Bradshaw v. STATE, DEPT. OF WILDLIFE & FISHERIES 616 So. 2d 799 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
Gov't., concerning a 1985 mishap.
Insley v. Titan Ins. Co. 589 So. 2d 10 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
RECREATIONAL USE IMMUNITY Although both parties considered the trial court's interpretation and application of the Recreational Use Statutes as the primary issue on appeal, (La.
Socorro v. City of New Orleans 579 So. 2d 931 La. 1991
Gov't, an opinion rendered some five months after the court of appeal rendered its opinion in this case.
Tisdale v. State Through Dept. of Transp. 581 So. 2d 1045 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
Miller v. State 572 So. 2d 197 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990