Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Norton v. Lewis, 623 So. 2d 874.

32 citing documents.

Brenton Bobb and Valarie Pickette v. Chester Slyvester and State Farm Insurance Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2023
Coleman v. United Fire & Casualty Insurance Co. 181 So. 3d 781 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
Co., supra; Dominguez v. American Casualty Co., supra; Manzella v. Doe, supra.
Sensebe v. Canal Indemnity Co. 58 So. 3d 441 La. 2011
Barton v. U.S. Agencies Casualty Insurance Co. 948 So. 2d 1267 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
Manzella v. Doe, 94-2854 (La.12/8/95)
Hartzo v. AMERICAN NAT. PROP. AND CAS. INS. 951 So. 2d 1120 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
Hartzo v. American National Property & Casualty Insurance Co. 951 So. 2d 1120 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
See 2Manzella v. Doe, 94-2854 (La.12/8/95)
Jones v. Foster 945 So. 2d 262 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
Norton v. Lewis, 92-2178 (La.9/3/93), ; Arceneaux v. Norman, 05-1536 (La.App.
Charles E. Slain, Jr. v. Carnell J. Thomas La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
the supreme court explained the “initial permission” rule: Once permission, whether express or implied, to use a motor vehicle is established it is given a wide and liberal meaning in determining coverage.
Slain v. Thomas 931 So. 2d 518 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
the supreme court explained the “initial permission” rule: Once permission, whether express or implied, to use a motor vehicle is established it is given a wide and liberal meaning in determining coverage.
Arceneaux v. Norman 931 So. 2d 484 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Henry Arceneaux v. Pamela Norman La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Once permission, whether express or implied, to use a motor vehicle is established, it is given a wide and liberal meaning in determining coverage.”
Wimberly v. Clark 877 So. 2d 195 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
and Wells v. Kemper Casualty Ins., 35,304 (La.App.
Campbell v. Verrett 829 So. 2d 1141 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
Valdetero v. Commercial Union Insurance 782 So. 2d 1210 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
Wade v. Autoland, Inc. 767 So. 2d 766 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
Pope v. Allstate Insurance Co. 751 So. 2d 299 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
5th Cir.1/26/99), ; Manzella v. Doe, 94-2854 (La.12/8/95)
Marcus v. Hanover Ins. Co., Inc. 740 So. 2d 603 La. 1999
Tross v. Windsor Ins. Co. 726 So. 2d 459 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
Hillman v. Edwards Transmission 722 So. 2d 338 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
Aycock v. Jenkins Tile Co. 703 So. 2d 117 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
The leading case discussing the circumstances under which the omnibus clause of an insurance policy may provide coverage to a person, other than the insured, using a covered vehicle with the insured's permission
Dixon v. Tillman 694 So. 2d 585 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
Johnson v. White 693 So. 2d 1223 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
Turner v. Alexander 690 So. 2d 756 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
Simms v. Butler 685 So. 2d 1188 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
Blackman v. Eggerton 684 So. 2d 78 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
Langston v. Shirley 682 So. 2d 1281 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
Boyd v. Terrell 669 So. 2d 1301 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
Furthermore, to argue that the initial permission rule as first articulated in Parks v. Hall, 189 La.
Manzella v. Doe 664 So. 2d 398 La. 1996
Panzico v. Price 658 So. 2d 1310 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
only six months after Perkins, supra .
Panzico v. Price 647 So. 2d 1154 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
It is Powell’s position that the Supreme Court’s overruled Perkins v. McDow and its predecessors.
Sledge v. Continental Cas. Co. 639 So. 2d 805 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
32:891, et seq.; White v. State, Dept. of Public Safety, (La.App.
Mercadel v. Tran 635 So. 2d 438 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994