DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Theriot v. Midland Risk Ins. Co., 694 So. 2d 184.

209 citing documents.

  • Lewis v. Miller 826 So. 2d 628 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    Co., 95-2895 (La.5/20/97), .
  • Phillips v. Patterson Ins. Co. 813 So. 2d 1191 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
    Co., 95-2895 (La.5/20/97); , does establish a remedy in favor of third parties in certain situations: "We have no trouble concluding that the legislature intended to provide a right of action directly in favor of third-party claimants in certain situations when it enacted La.
  • Brister v. GEICO INS. 813 So. 2d 614 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    Co., 95-2895 (La.5/20/97), .
  • Toerner v. Henry 812 So. 2d 755 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    22:1220 The Louisiana Supreme Court has held that the broad-based duty owed by an insurer, found in section 1220 A, cannot be used to amplify the exclusive list of sanctioned acts in section 1220 B. Theriot v. Midland Risk Insurance Company, 95-2895 (La.5/20/97), ; see Vaughn v. Franklin, XXXX-XXXX, p. 16 (La.
  • Crawford v. Duhon 799 So. 2d 1273 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    Co., 95-2895 (La.5/20/97), .
  • Wiley v. McDay 799 So. 2d 624 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
    Theriot v. Midland Risk Insurance Company, 95-2895 (La.5/20/97), ; Smith v. Midland Risk Insurance Company, 29,793 (La.App.2d Cir.9/24/97), .
  • Butler v. Allen 808 So. 2d 746 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    Co., 95-2895, p. 3 (La.5/20/97), .
  • Mexic v. Mexic 808 So. 2d 685 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
    Theriot v. Midland Risk Insurance Company, 95-2895 (La.5/20/97), ; Southlake Development Company v. Secretary, Louisiana Department of Revenue, 98-2158 (La.App.
  • Chatoney v. Safeway Ins. Co. 801 So. 2d 448 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
    Co., ; Moxley v. Cole, 97-1582 (La.App.
  • Riddle v. Bickford 785 So. 2d 795 La. 2001
    Theriot v. Midland Risk Insurance Co., 95-2895 (La.5/20/97), .
  • Vaughn v. Franklin 785 So. 2d 79 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    In Section B, 22:1220 enumerates five specific acts that constitute breaches of the duties set forth in Section A. In Theriot v. Midland Risk Insurance Company, 95-2895 (La.5/20/97), , the supreme court addressed the question of whether the list of acts enumerated in Section B was an exclusive or illustrative list of the activities for which damages and penalties could be awarded under that statute.
  • Simmons v. Southern Energy Homes, Inc. 783 So. 2d 636 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    Co., 95-2895 (La.5/20/97); .
  • Abl Mgmt. v. Board of Sup'rs of S. Univ. 773 So. 2d 131 La. 2000
    Co., 95-2895 (La.5/20/97), .
  • Scott v. Ouachita Parish School Board 768 So. 2d 702 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    In Theriot v. Midland Risk Insurance Co., 95-2895 (La.5/20/97), , the supreme court explained that the function of statutory interpretation rests with the judicial branch of the government.
  • Cacamo v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. 764 So. 2d 41 La. 2000
    Theriot v. Midland Risk Ins., Co., 95-2895 (La.5/20/97)
  • Woodruff v. State Farm Ins. Co. 767 So. 2d 785 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
    Co., 95-2895 (La.5/20/97), .
  • State v. Carr 761 So. 2d 1271 La. 2000
    A.M., 98-2752 (La.7/2/99), ; Theriot v. Midland Risk Ins., 95-2895 (5/20/97), .
  • Brasseaux v. Lafayette Parish Police Jury 759 So. 2d 209 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    Co., et al., 95-2895 (La.5/20/97); .
  • Calogero v. Safeway Ins. Co. of Louisiana 753 So. 2d 170 La. 2000
    Co., 95-2895 (La.5/20/97), n. 14 .
  • Doucet v. State Farm Insurance 748 So. 2d 1228 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    In Theriot v. Midland Risk Insurance Co., 95-2895 (La.5/20/97); , the Louisiana Supreme Court explained that the function of statutory interpretation rests with the judicial branch of government.
  • Deimel v. Dewhirst 750 So. 2d 1055 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
  • Southlake Dev. v. Secretary, Dept. of Rev. 745 So. 2d 203 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    Theriot v. Midland Risk Insurance Company, 95-2895 (La.5/20/97), .
  • Strong v. Farm Bureau Ins. Co. 743 So. 2d 949 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    Co., 95-2895 (La.05/20/97), .
  • State v. Gregory 745 So. 2d 723 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    Co., 95-2895, p. 3 (La.5/20/97); , “the paramount consideration in interpreting a statute is ascertaining the legislature’s intent and the reasons that prompted the legislature to enact the law.” In addition to this general guidance regarding statutory interpretation, La.R.S.
  • State ex rel. A.M. 739 So. 2d 188 La. 1999
    Co., 95-2895 (La.5/20/97); .
  • Folse v. Folse 738 So. 2d 1040 La. 1999
    Co., 95-2895 (La.5/20/97), .
  • Harrington v. Cato Corp. 740 So. 2d 732 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    See Theriot v. Midland Risk Insurance Company, 95-2895 (La.5/20/97), .
  • Ansalve v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 737 So. 2d 948 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    Co., 95-2895, p. 7 (La.5/20/97), .
  • State ex rel. Lee v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety & Corrections, Board of Pardon & Parole 739 So. 2d 815 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    Theriot v. Midland Risk Insurance Company, 95-2895, p. 3 (La.5/20/97); .
  • Menard v. LaFleur 737 So. 2d 844 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
    Co., 95-2895 (La.5/20/97); .
  • Washington v. Entergy Corp. 729 So. 2d 127 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    Co., 95-2895, p. 4 (La.5/20/97)
  • Exxon Pipeline v. La Public Service Com'n 728 So. 2d 855 La. 1999
    Co., 95-2895 (La.5/20/97), , we reviewed settled principles of statutory interpretation.
  • Roberts v. Chargois 736 So. 2d 910 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    Co., 95-2895 (La.5/20/97); .
  • Moxley v. Cole 736 So. 2d 249 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
    Co., 95-2895 (La.5/20/97); .
  • New Orleans Public Service Inc. v. Citizens Utilities Co. 726 So. 2d 1012 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    Co., 95-2895 (La.5/20/97), ; (La.App.
  • Celestine v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 735 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    Co., 95-2895 (La.5/20/97); , which, defendants argued, would deny plaintiff a cause of action under La.R.S.
  • Reed v. Recard 744 So. 2d 13 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    The trial court relied on the supreme court's original opinion in Theriot v. Midland Risk Insurance Company, 95-2895 (La.11/14/96); , reversed on rehearing, 95-2895 (La.5/20/97); , in which the court held an insurer could be liable for violating the broad general duties in LSA-R.S.
  • Paul v. Allstate Insurance Co. 720 So. 2d 1251 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    Co., 95-2895 (La.5/20/97), left open the question of whether or not a third-party claimant has a right of action under LSA-R.S.
  • State v. Antoine 721 So. 2d 562 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
    Co., 95-2895, p. 3-4 (La.5/20/97); -87 , the Louisiana Supreme Court discussed statutory interpretation as follows: The function of statutory interpretation and the construction to be given to legislative acts rests with the judicial branch of the government.
  • Endsley v. Pennington 718 So. 2d 650 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
    Theriot v. Midland Risk, 95-2895 (La.5/20/97), ; Smith v. Midland Risk, 29,793 (La.App.
  • Batson v. South Louisiana Medical Center 724 So. 2d 782 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    22:1220 B. Theriot v. Midland Risk Insurance Company, 95-2895 (La.11/14/96), , withdrawn, rehearing granted (La.12/13/96), reversed in part on rehearing, 95-2895 (La.5/20/97), .
  • Venible v. First Financial Ins. Co. 718 So. 2d 586 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
    Co., 95-2895, p. 15 (La.5/20/97), .
  • Scott v. Piccadilly Cafeteria 708 So. 2d 1296 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
    Co., 95-2895 (La.5/20/97); .
  • Jeanpierre v. Mikaelian 709 So. 2d 915 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
  • Potier v. Grovenburg 709 So. 2d 689 La. 1998
  • Clark v. Mrs. Fields Cookies 707 So. 2d 17 La. 1998
    Co., 95-2895 (La.5/20/97), , we reviewed settled principles of statutory interpretation.
  • Wartelle v. Women's and Children's Hosp., Inc. 704 So. 2d 778 La. 1997
    Co., 95-2895 (La.5/20/97), .
  • Bourque v. Audubon Ins. Co. 704 So. 2d 808 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
    Co., 95-2895 (La.5/20/97); , the Louisiana Supreme Court held that "we conclude that although a right of action is available to both insureds and third-party claimants under La.R.S.
  • Chargois v. Guillory 702 So. 2d 1068 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
    Co., 95-2895 (La.5/20/97), .
  • Credeur v. McCullough 702 So. 2d 985 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
    Co., 95-2895 (La.5/20/97), , and its effect regarding the application of La.R.S.