DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Saxton v. Plum Orchards, Inc., 40 So. 2d 791.

39 citing documents.

  • Taylor S. Southern and Ashley M. Southern, Individually and on Behalf of Their Minor Child, Matthew Taylor Southern. La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2024
  • Robbie Payne v. Brett Gardner La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
  • Robbie Payne v. Brett Gardner La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
  • Payne v. Gardner 49 So. 3d 1013 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
  • Adams v. State 525 So. 2d 55 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
    (1949); Cates v. Beauregard Electric Cooperative, Inc., (La.App.
  • Melerine v. State 505 So. 2d 79 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
  • Herbert v. City of Kenner 501 So. 2d 901 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1987
    9:2791 and 2795, , (1949) and Smith v. Crown-Zellerbach, Inc., 638 F.2d 883 (5th Cir.1981), the jurisprudence is clear that unless a "hidden trap" or "inherently dangerous" instrumentality peculiarly attractive to children exists, there can be no application of the doctrine.
  • Thompson v. Ewin 457 So. 2d 303 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
  • Simmons v. Whittington 444 So. 2d 1357 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
    Guillot v. Fisherman's Paradise, Inc., supra ; Saxton v. Plum Orchards, Inc., , (1949).
  • Guillot v. Fisherman's Paradise, Inc. 437 So. 2d 840 La. 1983
    Saxton v. Plum Orchards, Inc., -93 , (1949); Smith v. City of Baton Rouge, 166 La.
  • Walker v. Union Oil Mill, Inc. 369 So. 2d 1043 La. 1979
  • Richards v. Marlow 347 So. 2d 281 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1977
  • Hamilton v. Turner 273 So. 2d 590 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
  • Ibieta v. Phoenix of Hartford Insurance Co. 267 So. 2d 748 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
    That the precautions not taken were such as a reasonably prudent person would have taken under the circumstances.’ ” See Saxton v. Plum Orchards, Inc., , (1949); (La.
  • Butler v. City of Bogalusa 258 So. 2d 599 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
    In contending the attractive nuisance doctrine is applicable, appellant relies upon Duxworth, above, , , neither of which do we find pertinent.
  • Miles v. City-Parish Government of East Baton Rouge Parish 255 So. 2d 93 La. 1971
    TATE, J., respectfully dissents, , .
  • Spears v. Travelers Insurance Co. 241 So. 2d 303 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
    With regard to the attractive nuisance doctrine, , : “1.
  • Duxworth v. Pat Caffey Contractor, Inc. 209 So. 2d 497 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1968
    at p. 1263 , (1949), and applied in other cases.
  • Allien v. Louisiana Power & Light Company 202 So. 2d 704 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1967
    Saxton v. Plum Orchards, Inc., , (1949); Slaughter v. Gravity Drainage District #4, (Orl.La.App.
  • Schellange v. W. R. Aldrich & Co. 200 So. 2d 914 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
    Certainly that question was put at rest in this State when, in Saxton v. Plum Orchards, Inc., , , our Supreme Court applied it to a pool or accumulation of drainage water.
  • Curry v. Fruin-Colnon Contracting Co. 202 So. 2d 345 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
    The case of Saxton v. Plum Orchards, Inc., , gives a description of an attractive nuisance.
  • Scott v. Boh Bros. Construction Co. 195 So. 2d 353 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1967
    With regard to the attractive nuisance doctrine, , : "1.
  • Smith v. Preferred Risk Mutual Insurance Company 185 So. 2d 857 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1966
  • Louviere v. Great American Corp. 183 So. 2d 766 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
    Watts v. Murray, La.App., ; Martin v. Sessum Service Corporation, La.App., .
  • Lafont v. Maryland Casualty Co. 182 So. 2d 562 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
    In Saxton v. Plum Orchards, Inc., , , the court found that a pond containing debris, logs and many types of small animal life was an attractive nuisance.
  • Frensley v. Gravity Drainage District No. 5 180 So. 2d 743 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
    Plaintiff relies primarily on Saxton v. Plum Orchards, Inc., , (1949).
  • Stanley v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Company 179 So. 2d 490 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1965
  • Martin v. Sessum Service Corp. 174 So. 2d 180 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
  • Hebert v. American Hardware Mutual Insurance 161 So. 2d 92 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
    794: * * one is negligent in maintaining an agency which he knows, or reasonably should know, to be dangerous to children of tender years, at a place where he knows, or reasonably should know, children of tender years are likely to resort, or to which they are likely to be attracted by the agency, unl
  • Slaughter v. Gravity Drainage District No. 4 145 So. 2d 50 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1962
    Burris v. City of New Orleans, La.App.Orl., (Cert.
  • Holland v. Vidrine 133 So. 2d 809 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
    In summarizing this doctrine and its limitations, the Louisiana Supreme Court quoted favorably from a treatise source, , , its most recent expression on the subject: "`* * * one who maintains upon his premises a condition, instrumentality, machine, or other agency which is dangerous to children of tender years by reason of their inability to appreciate the peril therein, and which may reasonably be expected to attrac
  • Beasley v. Guerriero 123 So. 2d 774 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1960
    See Saxton v. Plum Orchards, Inc., , , together with the many cases cited therein.
  • Phillips v. City of New Orleans 98 So. 2d 559 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
    Saxton v. Plura Orchards, Inc., 1949, , ; Burris v. City of New Orleans, La.App.1956, .
  • Senegal v. Thompson 91 So. 2d 865 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
    See Saxton v. Plum Orchards, Inc., , .
  • Burris v. City of New Orleans 86 So. 2d 549 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
    Certainly that question was put at rest in this State when, in Saxton v. Plum Orchards, Inc., , , our Supreme Court applied it to a pool or accumulation of drainage water.
  • O'BIER v. Manufacturers Cas. Co. 70 So. 2d 220 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1954
    The most recent pronouncement of these requisites by appellate courts of Louisiana are to be found in Saxton v. Plum Orchards, Inc., , ; Watts v. Murray, La.
  • Genovese v. New Orleans Public Service 45 So. 2d 642 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1950
    We are not certain ourselves whether a pond is or is not ordinarily to be considered in the category of "attractive nuisance", but our interpretation of expressions of our Supreme Court, to be found in Saxton v. Plum Orchards, Inc., , , leads us to the belief that a pond is not to be considered as an attractive nuisance unless there is about it some characteristic, in addition to the mere *646 presence of water, which renders it unusually attractive and inherently dangerous.
  • Whitfield v. East Baton Rouge Parish School Board 43 So. 2d 47 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1949
    The plaintiffs, in oral argument and in brief, cite many cases wherein the doctrine of attractive nuisance was applied, particularly the case of Saxton v. Plum Orchards, Inc., , , 795.
  • Watts v. Murray 43 So. 2d 303 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1949
    v. Plum Orchards, Inc., , .