DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Fontenot v. Fontenot, 635 So. 2d 219.

29 citing documents.

  • Julie Smalley v. Anthony Ransonet La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    4/11/94), (footnotes omitted).
  • Roger Vestal v. Cynthia D. Kirkland La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
  • Vestal v. Kirkland 81 So. 3d 748 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    3 Cir.1993), rev’d on other grounds, 93-2479 (La.4/11/94), ; (La.App.
  • O'CONNOR v. Litchfield 864 So. 2d 234 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    Fontenot v. Fontenot, 93-2479, pp. 2-3 (La.4/11/94), .
  • Hall v. Folger Coffee Co. 857 So. 2d 1234 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
    4 Cir. 4/17/02), -40 ( and finding defendant's acknowledgement that hole was created by its personnel resulted in case being governed solely by La.
  • Taylor v. Entergy Corp. 816 So. 2d 933 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
    Fontenot v. Fontenot, 93-2479 (La.4/11/94), .
  • Brisbon v. Rhodes Funeral Home, Inc. 814 So. 2d 584 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    Fontenot v. Fontenot, 93-2479, p. - (La.4/11/94), .
  • Cooper v. Public Belt Railroad 776 So. 2d 639 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    and, Chaplain v. American Empire Surplus Lines Ins.
  • Patton v. Lemoine 776 So. 2d 513 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
    3 Cir.1993), rev'd on other grounds, 93-2479 (La.4/11/94); .
  • Libersat v. J & K TRUCKING, INC. 772 So. 2d 173 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
    3 Cir.1993), rev'd on other grounds, 93-2479 (La.4/11/94); ; (La.App.
  • Stone v. Hebert 762 So. 2d 220 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    art. 2317 states that, “We are responsible, not only for the damage occasioned by our own act, but for that which is caused by the act of persons for whom we are answerable, or of the things which we have in our custody.” | RA landowner’s : Under Louisiana law, liability for injuries sustained by one on the premises of another may be based on either strict liability or negligence.
  • Bailey v. Forest Hill Speedway 759 So. 2d 160 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    The Louisiana Supreme Court, in Fontenot v. Fontenot, 93-2479, pp. 2-3 (La.4/11/94); , distinguishes between the burden of proof necessary to recover in either ease.
  • Chaplain v. AMERICAN EMPIRE SURPLUS LINES 731 So. 2d 973 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
    Fontenot v. Fontenot, 93-2479 (La.4/11/94), .
  • Gillies v. St. Bernard Parish Government 728 So. 2d 551 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    As stated in his reasons for judgment, the trial judge relied on the case of Fontenot v. Fontenot, 93-2479 (La.4/11/94), , wherein the Supreme Court held that a plaintiffs burden of proof may be satisfied by circumstantial evidence if it excludes other reasonable hypotheses with a fair amount of certainty so that it is more probable than not that the harm was caused by the tortious conduct of the defendant.
  • Varnell v. Louisiana Tech University 709 So. 2d 890 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
    Fontenot v. Fontenot, 93-2479 (La.4/11/94), ; Choyce v. Sisters of the Incarnate Word, 25,958 (La.App.2d Cir. 8/19/94), , writ denied 94-2510 (La.12/9/94), .
  • Craig v. Sepulvado 709 So. 2d 229 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
    Fontenot v. Fontenot, 93-2479 (La.4/11/94); .
  • Goodliffe v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation & Development 702 So. 2d 36 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
    Bessard v. DOTD, 94-0589 (La.11/30/94), ; Fontenot v. Fontenot, 93-2479 (La.4/11/94), .
  • Blanchard v. STATE, THROUGH PARKS & REC. COM'N 702 So. 2d 768 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
    In the Reasons for Judgment, the trial court initially cited Fontenot v. Fontenot, 93-2479 (La.4/11/94); , for the proposition that, in a negligence suit, the plaintiffs are required to prove all of the elements of strict liability in addition to the element of scienter.
  • Kumpe v. State 701 So. 2d 498 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
    Plaintiff's applicable burden of proof was set forth by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Fontenot v. Fontenot, 93-2479 (La.4/11/94); , 221: Under Louisiana law, liability for injuries sustained by one on the premises of another may be based on strict liability or negligence.
  • Blanchard v. State ex rel. Parks & Recreation Commission 702 So. 2d 768 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
    In the Reasons for Judgment, the trial court initially cited Fontenot v. Fontenot, 93-2479 (La.4/11/94); , for the proposition that, in a negligence suit, the plaintiffs are required to prove all of the elements of strict liability in addition to the element of scienter.
  • McAllister v. Coats 691 So. 2d 305 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
    See Fontenot v. Fontenot, 93-2479, p. 3-4 (La.4/11/94); -22 .
  • Stroik v. Ponseti 683 So. 2d 1342 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
    Fontenot v. Fontenot, 93-2479 (La.4/11/94), ; Dixie Drive It Yourself System New Orleans Co. v. American Beverage Co., 242 La.
  • Jones v. Peyton Place, Inc. 675 So. 2d 754 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
  • Miller v. STATE, DOTD 679 So. 2d 134 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
    See Fontenot v. Fontenot, 93-2479 (La.4/11/94), .
  • Moseley v. Law Enforcement District of Avoyelles Parish 670 So. 2d 745 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
  • Matthews v. Consolidated Companies, Inc. 657 So. 2d 765 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
  • Continental Ins. v. THREE SEASONS 649 So. 2d 1220 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
  • Chelette v. Security Indus. Ins. 647 So. 2d 469 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
  • Bessard v. State, Dept. of Transp. and Development 645 So. 2d 1134 La. 1994