Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Springer v. Government Employees Ins., 313 So. 2d 598.

23 citing documents.

Rener v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 759 So. 2d 214 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
4 Cir.), writ denied, Fore v. Travelers Ins.
Short v. Gaylord Chemical Corp. 731 So. 2d 493 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
App. 3 Cir.), writ refused
State v. WAS 629 So. 2d 1209 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
3d Cir.), writ refused, and writ not considered, (La.App.
State v. W.A.S. 629 So. 2d 1209 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
3d Cir.), writ refused, and writ not considered, (La.App.
Williams v. Allstate Ins. Co. 599 So. 2d 478 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
3d Cir. 1975), writ refused (La.
Hanchey v. STATE, DOTD 597 So. 2d 1252 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
3d Cir.1975), writ refused (La.App.
Pinkney v. Progressive Specialty Ins. 597 So. 2d 1168 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
4th Cir.), writs denied, should control in this instance.
Dugas v. Frederick 594 So. 2d 1372 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
3d Cir.1975), writ refused (La.App.
Harris v. Burch 561 So. 2d 931 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
3rd Cir.1975), writ denied
Bruce v. Rogers Oil Tool Services, Inc. 556 So. 2d 922 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
4 Cir.1975), writ denied, stated, at pages 1092, 1093: "We hold that the [words] the `physical contact of such vehicle' includes the physical contact of that vehicle with an intermediate vehicle or other object which, in the same mechanism of the accident, strikes the assured's vehicle.
Fore v. Travelers Ins. Co. 528 So. 2d 1091 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
4th Cir.), writ denied, we held that the "physical contact" requirement of the uninsured motorist policy was met even though there was no physical contact directly between the plaintiff's car and the uninsured vehicle.
Cochran v. Riggins Heavy Hauling 516 So. 2d 1303 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
4th Cir.1975), writ denied
Chapman v. State Dept. of Transp. & Dev. 517 So. 2d 331 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
4th Cir.), writ denied, (1975).
Johnson v. Masur 493 So. 2d 881 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
3rd Cir.1975), writ not considered
Harrison v. Commercial Union Ins. Co. 471 So. 2d 922 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
4th Cir.1975), writ denied
Gentry v. Pinksa 467 So. 2d 93 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
3 Cir.1975), writ refused, (La.App.
Johnson v. Morris 431 So. 2d 429 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
3d Cir.1975), writ refused (La.App.
Sutherland v. Time Saver Stores, Inc. 428 So. 2d 972 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
3rd Cir.1975), writ refused
Bass v. Bass 417 So. 2d 67 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
3rd Cir. 1975), writ denied
Coignet v. Deubert 413 So. 2d 253 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
: When a review of the record indicates the trial court judgment is correct and that justice has been done, the judgment will not be overturned because of errors which do not affect the merits.
Bowers v. Greene 386 So. 2d 920 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
3rd Cir. 1975), this Court enunciated the following principles: "When a review of the record indicates the trial court judgment is correct and that justice has been done, the judgment will not be overturned because of errors which [do] not affect the merits.
Slack v. Inglehart 386 So. 2d 967 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
3rd Cir. 1975), writ den.
Carlton v. Great Am. Ins. Co. 340 So. 2d 678 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1977
3rd Cir., 1975) writ ref., La., , which states: "When a review of the record indicates the trial court judgment is correct and that justice has been done, the judgment will not be overturned because of error which did not affect the merits.