DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Cassanova v. Paramount-Richards Theatres, Inc., 16 So. 2d 444.

23 citing documents.

  • Harvey ex rel. Bates v. T.H.E. Insurance 764 So. 2d 354 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    534 (1924); , (1943); (La.App.
  • Ludwig v. Jefferson Performing Arts Society 737 So. 2d 1267 La. 1999
    Cassanova v. Paramount-Richards Theatres, Inc., , (1943).
  • Robinson v. Estate of Haynes 509 So. 2d 128 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
    Cassanova v. Paramount-Richards Theatres, Inc., et al., 204 La.813, Keen v. Pel State Oil Company, Inc., (La.App.
  • Lincecum v. Missouri Pacific RR Co. 452 So. 2d 1182 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    Cassanova v. Paramount-Richards Theatres, Inc., et al., , Keen v. Pel State Oil Company, Inc., (La.App.
  • Ketcher v. Illinois Central Gulf R. Co. 440 So. 2d 805 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    (1943), the plaintiff sustained injury when her foot went into a space between the end of a row and the edge of a step in a theatre while descending the aisle-stairway causing her to fall.
  • Keen v. Pel State Oil Co., Inc. 395 So. 2d 866 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1981
  • Rivere v. Thunderbird, Inc. 353 So. 2d 346 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
    534 (1924); , (1943); (La.App.
  • Spiers v. Lake Shore Enterprises, Inc. 210 So. 2d 901 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
    Boucher v. Paramount-Richards Theatres, La.App., .
  • Jopling v. Short Cut White Kitchen, Inc. 204 So. 2d 128 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
  • Robnett v. Great American Insurance Co. of NY 187 So. 2d 152 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1966
    (1943), the court made this observation: "Almost all courts admit evidence of prior accidents for the purpose of charging the owners or managers of buildings and premises with notice of defects or physical conditions which are dangerous * * *."
  • Bryant v. Ludendi Roller Drome, Inc. 150 So. 2d 55 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
    Cardone v. Sheldon Hotel Corporation, 160 Pa.
  • Carriere v. Aetna Casualty Company 146 So. 2d 451 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
    Cassanova v. Paramount-Richards Theatres, Inc., , ; Walsh v. Whitney Bank of New Orleans (Orl.App., 1941), .
  • Daire v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Ins. Co. 143 So. 2d 389 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1962
  • Levert v. Travelers Indemnity Company 140 So. 2d 811 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1962
    See: Cassanova v. Paramount-Richards Theatres, Inc., , ; Sherrill v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., La.App.
  • Pierce v. Atlantic Refining Company 140 So. 2d 19 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1962
  • Pennington v. Justiss-Mears Oil Company 123 So. 2d 625 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
    See also Cassanova v. Paramount-Richards Theatres, Inc., , -448 .
  • Williams v. Loews Inc. 126 So. 2d 13 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
    The duty a , , to the effect that, although proprietors of places of amusement operated for profit are not' insurers of the safety of their patrons, they are charged with the duty to use reasonable or ordinary care to keep their premises in such a safe condition that invitees will not be unnecessarily exposed to dan
  • Scott v. Fair Grounds Corp. 112 So. 2d 763 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
  • Allen v. Shreveport Theatre Corp. 51 So. 2d 607 La. 1951
    In Cassanova v. Paramount Richard Theatres, Inc., et al., , , the law with respect to the duty of care imposed on the owners and occupants of places of amusement that are conducted for profit is stated as follows: “Although the proprietors of places of amusement that are operated for profit are not generally considered to be insurers of the safety of t
  • Allen v. Shreveport Theatre Corporation 42 So. 2d 865 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1949
    659, 661 , or as the "proprietors of places of amusement" as in the case of Cassanova v. Paramount-Richards Theatres, Inc., et al., , .
  • Boucher v. Paramount-Richards Theatres 30 So. 2d 211 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1947
    Counsel for plaintiff argue that Cassanova v. Paramount-Richards Theatres, Inc., et al., , , 447, decided by the Supreme Court, is a case in which it is held that the operator of a moving picture theatre is held to a stricter account to his patrons than that above expressed and quotes the following language from the opinion: "The authorities are in conflict as to what constitutes reasonable a
  • Pittman v. Gulotta 25 So. 2d 343 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1946
    and authorities there cited.
  • McQuillan v. City of New Orleans 18 So. 2d 218 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1944
    163 ; Cassanova v. Paramount-Richards Theatres, Inc., et al., La.App., ; Cassanova v. Paramount-Richards Theatres, Inc. et al., , (on application for rehearing in Supreme Court).