DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Roberts v. Benoit, 605 So. 2d 1032.

308 citing documents.

  • Broussard v. Retail Investors of Texas, Ltd. 123 So. 3d 912 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    Berg v. Zummo, 00-1699 (La.4/25/01), ( (on rehearing)).
  • Jones v. Buck Kreihs Marine Repair, L.L.C. 122 So. 3d 1181 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    Further, to meet the cause-in-fact element, a plaintiff must prove only that certain conduct was “a necessary antecedent of an accident; that is, but for the defendant’s conduct, the incident probably would not have occurred.” [Emphasis supplied.]
  • Reginald Phillips v. City of Crowley La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    It had to do with the fact that she turned violent in some domestic situation.” the Louisiana Supreme Court considered a case where Benoit, an off-duty police deputy, shot the plaintiff accidentally while he was playing with his gun while intoxicated.
  • Phillips v. City of Crowley 115 So. 3d 1240 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    It had to do with the fact that she turned violent in some domestic situation.” the Louisiana Supreme Court considered a case where Benoit, an off-duty police deputy, shot the plaintiff accidentally while he was playing with his gun while intoxicated.
  • Stead v. Swanner 119 So. 3d 110 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
  • Sherman Journet v. Clifford Mouton La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
  • Journet v. Mouton 107 So. 3d 829 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
  • Huey v. Caldwell Parish School Board 109 So. 3d 924 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
  • Tracey D. Kulka v. Shag II, Inc. D/B/A the Bulldog Pool Hall" " La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
  • Kulka v. Shag 100 So. 3d 412 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
  • Brodnax v. Foster 92 So. 3d 427 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
  • Patricia Bourque v. Essex Insurance Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
    Louisiana Civil Code 2315(A) states, “[e]very act whatever of man that causes damage to another obliges him by whose fault it happened to repair it.” The Louisiana Supreme Court, stated the following: The standard negligence analysis we employ in determining whether to impose liability under Civil Code Article 2315 is the duty-risk analysis, which consists of the following four-prong inquiry: I. Was the conduct in question a substantial factor in
  • Bourque v. Essex Insurance Co. 86 So. 3d 840 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    Louisiana Civil Code 2315(A) states, “[ejvery act whatever of man that causes damage to another obliges him by whose fault it happened to repair it.” The Louisiana Supreme Court, stated the following: The standard negligence analysis we employ in determining whether to impose liability under Civil Code Article 2315 is the duty-risk analysis, which consists of the following four-prong inquiry: I. Was the conduct in question a substantial factor in bringing about the harm to the
  • Patrick E. Phillips v. G & H Seed Company, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
    As noted by Judge Saunders in his dissent in Phillips I, the supreme court in 9 to 5 Fashions, specifically found that “the PPG case abrogat[ed] the rule that flatly prohibited recovery for intangible economic loss produced by negligent conduct.” the supreme court reiterated that the extent of protection owed a particular plaintiff is determined on a case-by- case basis to avoid making a defendant an insurer of all persons against all harms.
  • Barbe v. American Sugar Refining, Inc. 83 So. 3d 75 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
  • Carl Jones, Sr. v. Centerpoint Energy Entex La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    “Regardless if stated in terms of proximate cause, legal cause, or duty, the scope of the duty inquiry is ultimately a question of policy as to whether the particular risk falls within the scope of the duty.”
  • Jones v. Centerpoint Energy Entex 66 So. 3d 539 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    “Regardless if stated in terms of proximate cause, legal cause, or duty, the scope of the duty inquiry is ultimately a question of policy as to whether the particular risk falls within the scope of the duty.”
  • Patrick E. Phillips v. G & H Seed Company, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    1989), specifically found that “the PPG case abrogat[ed] the rule that flatly prohibited recovery for intangible -11- economic loss produced by negligent conduct.” the supreme court reiterated that the extent of protection owed a particular plaintiff is determined on a case-by-case basis to avoid making a defendant an insurer of all persons against all harms.
  • Phillips v. G & H SEED CO. 66 So. 3d 507 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    As noted by Judge Saunders in his dissent in Phillips I , the supreme court in 9 to 5 Fashions, specifically found that “the PPG case abrogated] the rule that flatly prohibited recovery for intangible economic loss produced by negligent conduct.” the supreme court reiterated that the extent of protection owed a particular plaintiff is determined on a case-by-case basis to avoid making a defendant an insurer of all persons against all harms.
  • Bellanger v. Webre 65 So. 3d 201 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    Raudo v. Anco Insulations, Inc., 2008-1163, 2008-1169, p. 31 (La.5/22/09)
  • Kelley v. Dyson 40 So. 3d 1100 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    App. 5 Cir. 11/28/00), ; Smith v. Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc., (La.App.
  • Dupre & Son Floor Covering, Inc. v. City of Iota La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
  • Dupre & Son Floor Covering, Inc. v. City of Iota 36 So. 3d 1117 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
  • Suitt v. Webre 30 So. 3d 1184 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
  • Darlene Kay Tyson, Et Vir. v. Floyd King La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
  • Dennis v. Wiley 22 So. 3d 189 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    Further, determining the scope of a duty is “ultimately a question of policy as to whether the particular risk falls within the scope of the duty.”
  • Brewer v. J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc. 9 So. 3d 932 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
  • Rando v. Anco Insulations Inc. 16 So. 3d 1065 La. 2009
    “Regardless if stated in terms of proximate cause, legal cause, or duty, the scope of the duty inquiry is ultimately a question of policy as to whether the particular risk falls within the scope of the duty.”
  • Hendrickson v. Guillory 15 So. 3d 256 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    4 Cir. 3/16/95) , , this Court explained that: the Louisiana Supreme Court held that in order to prevail on a negligence claim under La.
  • J.M., Individually and on Behalf of Her Minor Daughter, A.C. v. Acadia Parish School Board La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
  • J.M. v. Acadia Parish School Board 7 So. 3d 150 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
  • Kelley v. Dyson 10 So. 3d 283 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    The cases cited by the parties have in common that the employment gave the *288 tortious/criminal employees “unique opportunities” to commit their wrongdoing: (deputy sheriff with access to firearm); Smith v. Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc., (La.App.
  • Wooley v. Lucksinger 14 So. 3d 311 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    Roberts v. Benoit, 91-0394, p. 26 (La.5/28/92), (an rehearing), ; Smith v. Roussel, 2000-1028, p. 8 (La.App.
  • State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. LeRouge 995 So. 2d 1262 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
    The Louisiana negligence standard was set forth by the Louisiana Supreme Court in the landmark case, Roberts v. Benoit, 91-0394 (La.9/9/91), .
  • Keith Roy v. Kyrles, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    4/25/01), -16 (), stated the following: [U]nder the duty/risk analysis, the plaintiff must prove five separate elements: (1) the defendant had a duty to conform his conduct to a specific standard (the duty element); (2) the defendant failed to conform his conduct to the appropriate standard (t
  • Roy v. Kyrles, Inc. 983 So. 2d 975 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    When discussing duty/risk analysis, our supreme court, in Berg v. Zummo, 00-1699, p. 11 (La.4/25/01), -16 (), stated the following: [U]nder the duty/risk analysis, the plaintiff must prove five separate elements: (1) the defendant had a duty to conform his conduct to a specific standard (the duty element); (2) the defendant failed to conform his conduct to the appropriate standard (the breach of duty element
  • Talton v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co. 981 So. 2d 696 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
  • Jones v. Gaines 978 So. 2d 522 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
  • HANEGAN v. Litchfield 973 So. 2d 180 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
  • Bellsouth Telecom. v. Eustis Engineering 974 So. 2d 749 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2007
    In that case, we stated: the Louisiana Supreme Court held that in order to prevail on a negligence claim under La.
  • Williams v. a & M Operating Co., Inc. 973 So. 2d 138 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
    Porteous, supra ; (on rehearing).
  • Higginbotham v. Rapides Foundation 968 So. 2d 1226 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
  • Elizabeth Higginbotham v. Rapides Healthcare System, LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
  • Ronald E. Corkern, III v. R. Allen Smith La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
  • Corkern v. Smith 960 So. 2d 1152 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
  • Phillisa Jackson v. State of Louisiana La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
  • Chaisson v. Avondale Industries, Inc. 947 So. 2d 171 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2007
  • Andry v. Murphy Oil, USA, Inc. 935 So. 2d 239 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
  • Carl Harris Hesse v. Champ Service Line La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
  • Hesse v. CHAMP SERVICE LINE 933 So. 2d 247 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    Theriot v. Lasseigne, 93-2661 (La.7/5/94)