DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Patterson v. Kuntz, 28 So. 2d 278.

17 citing documents.

  • Duplechain v. Turner 444 So. 2d 1322 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
  • Gordon v. City of New Orleans 363 So. 2d 235 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
    See Patterson v. Kuntz, La.App., ; Byrd v. Isgitt, La.App., .
  • Rowell v. Wimberly 312 So. 2d 369 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1975
    The law regarding the use of excessive force in repelling a (La.App.
  • Foster v. Barker 306 So. 2d 910 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
  • Bond v. Toriello 260 So. 2d 727 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1972
  • McCullough v. McANNELLY 248 So. 2d 7 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
  • Alexander v. McCray 190 So. 2d 463 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
    See Pearson v. Taylor (La.App., 1959) 116 So.2d *465 833; and Patterson v. Kuntz (La.App., 1946) .
  • Whittington v. Levy 184 So. 2d 577 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1966
    180 , ; Patterson v. Kuntz, La.App., .)
  • Simms v. D'Avillier 179 So. 2d 707 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
    Pearson v. Taylor, La.App., ; Patterson v. Kuntz, La.App., .
  • Tezeno v. Maryland Casualty Company 166 So. 2d 351 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1964
  • McKellar v. Mason 159 So. 2d 700 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1964
    180 , ; Patterson v. Kuntz, La.App., .
  • Edwards v. Great American Insurance Company 146 So. 2d 260 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1962
  • Wilson v. Dimitri 138 So. 2d 618 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
    App., , and Pearson v. Taylor, La.App., .
  • Pearson v. Taylor 116 So. 2d 833 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1959
    In Patterson v. Kuntz, La.App., , this principle of law was discussed and plaintiff denied recovery.
  • Smith v. Delery 114 So. 2d 857 La. 1959
    We think that he did.” In reaching this conclusion, the Court of Appeal, relying on its prior holding in the case of Patterson v. Kuntz, La.App., , stated: “When we compare the facts of this case with those found in Patterson v. Kuntz, supra, [ ] it seems that, except for the fact that young Patterson was to some extent himself to blame, there is no distinction between the facts here and the facts there.
  • Smith v. Delery 98 So. 2d 899 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
    sel also point to Delery’s statement that when he fired the shot he did no-t intend to hurt the person, but that he “shot to scare.” He says that he “hollowed ‘halt’ and the person ran, I figured I was going to shoot to scare whoever it was so they would not come bade.” It seems to be practically conceded by counsel for plaintiff and for intervenar that, as we held in Patterson v. Kuntz, La.App., , where a husband and father, under extraordinary circumstances, is justified in bdieving that the s
  • Bethley v. Cochrane 77 So. 2d 228 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
    In the comparatively recent case of Patterson v. Kuntz, La.App., , we had occasion to say: "Of course, resort to the use of a dangerous weapon in order to repel a supposed attack upon a defendant's person or that of persons to whom he owes a duty to protect cannot be countenanced as justifiable save in exceptional cases where the actor's fear of the danger is not only genuine