DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Joseph v. Dickerson, 754 So. 2d 912.

50 citing documents.

  • Rochelle Broadnax, as Tutrix of Her Minor Children, McKenzie Broadnax, Dezmond Broadnax, Chacyen Broadnax and Cayden Garrison; And … La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2025
  • Nyress Manning on Behalf of Minor Child, Corey Williams, Jr., for the Wrongful Death of Dereial Manning and … La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2024
  • Irma Trosclair v. Moss Motors, Inc., New York Marine & General, Doris S. Prudhomme, and Shelter Insurance La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2024
  • Jena Rougeau v. Hospital Service District 2 of Beauregard Parish La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2023
    Joseph v. Dickerson, 99- 1046 (La.1/19/00), Boykin v. Louisiana Transit Co., 96-1932 (La.3/4/98)
  • Shantanya Thibeaux v. Goauto Insurance Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
    As we recognized in Joseph v. Dickerson, 99-1046, p.9 (La.1/19/00), the purpose of the exclusion “is to allow the named insured the option of paying a reduced premium in exchange for insurance that affords no coverage while a covered vehicle is operated by the excluded driver.” 4 Bryant v. United Servs.
  • Thibeaux v. Goauto Ins. Co. 269 So. 3d 843 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
    1/19/00), , 917, the purpose of the exclusion "is to allow the named insured the option of paying a reduced premium in exchange for insurance that affords no coverage while a covered vehicle is operated by the excluded driver."
  • Talbert v. Restoration Hardware, Inc. 251 So. 3d 532 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
  • Hoffman v. Theriot 249 So. 3d 297 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
  • Labarre v. Occidental Chem. Co. 250 So. 3d 932 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
  • Fie, LLC v. New Jax Condo Ass'n, Inc. 241 So. 3d 372 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
  • Bourg v. Southall 186 So. 3d 1185 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    As we recognized in Joseph v. Dickerson, 99-1046, p. 9 (La.1/19/00), , the purpose of the exclusion ‘is to allow the named insured the option of paying a reduced premium in exchange for insurance that affords no coverage while a covered vehicle is operated by the excluded driver.’ Another split among the appellate court circuits arose shortly thereafter over the issue, of whether
  • Toups v. Dantin 181 So. 3d 33 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    Joseph v. Dickerson, 99-1046 (La.1/19/00), .
  • Normand v. Grayson 153 So. 3d 539 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    Bryant 881 So.2d at |41219; Joseph v. Dickerson, 99-1046 (La.1/19/00), ; Bimah v. Meza, 2012-0124 (La.App.
  • Cherlyn Forbes v. Allstate Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
  • Valencia v. A & J Auto Wreckers, Inc. 119 So. 3d 936 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    The Supreme Court has generally recognized that the purpose of the named driver exclusion “is to allow the named insured the option of paying a reduced premium in exchange for insurance that affords no coverage while a covered vehicle is operated by the excluded driver.” Id., p. 6, 42 So.3d at 363 (citing Joseph v. Dickerson, 99-1046, p. 9 (La.1/19/00), ).
  • Thistlethwaite v. Gonzalez 106 So. 3d 238 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    Joseph v. Dickerson, 99-1046 (La.1/19/00), .
  • Daniels v. USAgencies Casualty Insurance 92 So. 3d 1049 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    Joseph v. Dickerson, 99-1046 (La.1/19/00), .
  • Kevin B. Lorio v. Teche Federal Savings Bank La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
  • Lorio v. Teche Federal Savings Bank 85 So. 3d 1283 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    “A principal is not liable for the torts of a non-servant mandatory.” Joseph v. Dickerson, 99-1046, p. 8 (La.1/19/00), .
  • Young v. McGraw 70 So. 3d 1047 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
    Ass’n, 2003-3491 (La.9/9/04), 881 So.2d *1051 1214; Joseph v. Dickerson, 99-1046 (La.1/19/00), .
  • Brumfield v. Lind 54 So. 3d 769 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    “Generally, there is an almost universal legal duty on the part of a defendant in a negligence case to conform to the standard of conduct of a reasonable person in like circumstances.” Davis v. Witt, 02-3102 (La.7/2/03) (citing Joseph v. Dickerson, 99-1046 (La.1/19/00), ; Boykin v. Louisiana Transit Co., 96-1932 (La.3/4/98), ).
  • Southern Industrial Contractors, LLC v. Western Builders of Amarillo, Inc. 56 So. 3d 307 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
    Joseph v. Dickerson, 99-1188 (La.1/19/00), ; Loftin v. Champion Imports LLC, 35,619 (La.App.
  • Hawkins v. Redmon 42 So. 3d 360 La. 2010
    As we recognized in Joseph v. Dickerson, 99-1046, p. 9 (La.1/19/00), , the purpose of the exclusion “is to allow the named insured the option of paying a reduced premium in exchange for insurance that affords no coverage while a covered vehicle is operated by the excluded driver.” In the cases that followed the enactment of LSA-R.S.
  • Everett v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Insurance Co. 37 So. 3d 456 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    Joseph v. Dickerson, 99-1046, pp. 6-7 (La.1/19/00), .
  • Filipski v. Imperial Fire & Casualty Insurance Co. 25 So. 3d 742 La. 2009
    Joseph v. Dickerson, 99-1046 at p. 9 (La.1/19/00), .
  • Theodore E. Filipski, III v. Imperial Fire and Casualty Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
    1/19/00), in support of its argument.
  • Filipski v. Imperial Fire & Casualty Insurance 9 So. 3d 1065 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    Imperial Fire cites the case of Joseph v. Dickerson, 99-1046 (La.1/19/00), , in support of its argument.
  • Brooks v. TRANSIT MANAGEMENT OF SOUTHEAST LA. 996 So. 2d 9 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
    Joseph v. Dickerson, 99-1046, p. 7 (La.1/19/00), ; , 938 (La.1991).
  • HANEGAN v. Litchfield 973 So. 2d 180 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
  • Medina v. Woods 944 So. 2d 697 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
    [2] In Joseph v. Dickerson, 99-1046, 00-1188 (La.1/19/00), the Louisiana Supreme Court stated that "we need not address whether public policy is violated when an insurance policy provision denies coverage to the insured for imputed negligence arising out of the excluded driver's use of the car, because we have determined that Judith is not vicariously liable for Christina's n
  • Cowan v. Jack 922 So. 2d 559 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
    See also Joseph v. Dickerson, 99-1046, pp. 1-2 (La.1/19/00), (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 390 (1965)).
  • Creel v. Southern Natural Gas Co. 917 So. 2d 491 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
    App. 1 Cir. 5/9/03), , writ denied, XXXX-XXXX (La.10/3/03), ( citing Joseph v. Dickerson, 99-1046, 99-1188 (La.1/19/00), ).
  • Rathey v. Priority EMS, Inc. 894 So. 2d 438 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
    Joseph v. Dickerson, 99-1046, 99-1188, p. 7 (La.1/19/2000), .
  • Collins v. Farris 897 So. 2d 634 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
    Noyes, 872 So.2d at 1136 ; Joseph v. Dickerson, 99-1046 & 1188 (La.1/19/00), .
  • Bryant v. United Services Automobile Ass'n 881 So. 2d 1214 La. 2004
    As we recognized in Joseph v. Dickerson, 99-1046, p. 9 (La.1/19/00), , the purpose of the exclusion “is to allow the named insured the option of paying a reduced premium in exchange for insurance that affords no coverage while a covered vehicle is operated by the excluded driver.” The Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Law also provides various consequences for an owner’s failure
  • Bryant v. UNITED SERVICES AUTO. ASS'N 881 So. 2d 1214 La. 2004
    As we recognized in Joseph v. Dickerson, 99-1046, p. 9 (La.1/19/00), , the purpose of the exclusion "is to allow the named insured the option of paying a reduced premium in exchange for insurance that affords no coverage while a covered vehicle is operated by the excluded driver."
  • Abbasi v. State Farm Ins. Co. 875 So. 2d 988 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
    [3] Joseph v. Dickerson XXXX-XXXX (La.1/19/00), , and the cases cited therein.
  • Smith v. Williams 879 So. 2d 233 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
    Joseph v. Dickerson, 99-1046, 99-1188, p. 9 (La.1/19/00), .
  • Cenance v. Tassin 869 So. 2d 913 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
    See, Joseph v. Dickerson, 99-1046, 99-1188 (La.1/19/00), .
  • State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Noyes 872 So. 2d 1133 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
    Joseph v. Dickerson, 99-1046, 99-1188 (La.1/19/00), .
  • Cheairs v. State Ex Rel. DOTD 861 So. 2d 536 La. 2003
    Joseph v. Dickerson, 99-1046, p. 7 (La.1/19/00), .
  • Davis v. Witt 851 So. 2d 1119 La. 2003
    Joseph v. Dickerson, 99-1046 (La.1/19/00), ; Boykin v. Louisiana Transit Co., 96-1932 (La.3/4/98), .
  • Bowman v. City of Baton Rouge 849 So. 2d 622 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    Joseph v. *627 Dickerson, 99-1046, 99-1188 (La.1/19/00), .
  • Hardy v. Foti 812 So. 2d 792 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    In Joseph v. Dickerson, 99-1046, p. 6-7 (La.1/19/00), , the Louisiana Supreme Court summarized the burden of proof required for a negligence claim as follows: Negligence claims under La.
  • Williams v. Watson 798 So. 2d 55 La. 2001
    Joseph v. Dickerson, 99-1046, 99-1188 (La.1/19/00), .
  • Williams v. US Agencies Cas. Ins. Co., Inc. 779 So. 2d 729 La. 2001
    Joseph v. Dickerson, 99-1046, 99-1188 (La.1/19/00), .
  • Procell v. Safeway Insurance 782 So. 2d 34 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    32:900(L) in Joseph v. Dickerson, 99-1046 (La.1/19/00), , and Adams v. Thomas, 98-2003, 98-2005 (La.4/13/99), .
  • Cornelius v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 772 So. 2d 816 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    Mathieu v. Imperial Toy Corp., 94-952 (La.11/30/94); ; see also Joseph v. Dickerson, 99-1046, 99-1188 (La.1/19/00); .
  • Winbush v. Wiley 773 So. 2d 139 La. 2000
    See Joseph v. Dickerson, 99-1046 c/w 99-1188 (La.1/19/00), .
  • Winbush v. Wiley 757 So. 2d 648 La. 2000
    Granted and remanded to the court of appeal for reconsideration in light of Joseph v. Dickerson, 99-1046 c/w 99-1188 (La.1/19/00), .