DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Mills v. Heidingsfield, 192 So. 786.

16 citing documents.

  • Brown v. Southern Ventures Corporation 331 So. 2d 207 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
  • Johnson v. Ruben 222 So. 2d 617 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
    Alexander v. General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corp., supra; Barrilleaux v. Noble Drilling Corp., La.App., (4th Cir., 1964); Vincent v. Superior Iron Works & Supply Co., La.App., (4th Cir., 1964); Mills v. Heidingsfield, La.App., (2d Cir., 1939).
  • Cothern v. La Rocca 221 So. 2d 836 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1969
  • Simoneaux v. Copolymer Rubber & Chemical Corp. 189 So. 2d 745 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
  • Payton v. St. John 188 So. 2d 647 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1966
    La.App., 2d Cir.1939 (writ denied).
  • Wannage v. Marcantel 176 So. 2d 5 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
    Potter v. Board of Commissioners of Port of New Orleans, (La.App., 4 Cir., 1963), ; Mills v. Heidingsfield, (La.App., 2 Cir., 1939), , writs denied; and, *7 Buchanan v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry.
  • Vincent v. Superior Iron Works & Supply Co. 170 So. 2d 184 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
    The duty of the owner or possessor of premises to a licensee is lucidly discussed in Mills v. Heidingsfield et al., *188 La.App., , by Judge Hamiter, then a member of this court.” 68 So.2d at 161-162 .
  • Potter v. Board of Com'rs of Port of New Orleans 148 So. 2d 439 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1963
    Co., La.App., ; Mills v. Heidingsfield, La.App., ; Vargas v. Blue Seal Bottling Works, 12 La.App.
  • Geyen v. Toussand 148 So. 2d 115 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
    2 Cir., 1939), ; Keenan v. Wactor (La.App.
  • Malatesta v. Lowry 130 So. 2d 785 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1961
    (certiorari denied), decided by the late Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit, with the now Mr. Justice Hamiter as author of the opinion, the suit for damages brought by a prospective tenant who was injured while on residential property which he had entered for the purpose of determining whether the premises ma
  • Veal v. Employers Liability Assurance Corp. 108 So. 2d 242 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
    Another expression of the rule is that the owner does not owe to a licensee any duty of active vigilance to see that he is not injured while on the premises.’ “The above statement of the law has been followed in many Louisiana cases such as Salter v. Zoder [La.App.], and Mills v. Heidingsfield [La.App.], .
  • Alexander v. General Accident Fire & L. Assur. Corp. 98 So. 2d 730 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
  • Taylor v. Baton Rouge Sash & Door Works, Inc. 68 So. 2d 159 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
    The duty of the owner of possessor of premises to a licensee is lucidly discussed in Mills v. Heidingsfield et al., *162 La.App., , by Judge Hamiter, then a member of this court.
  • Audubon Ins. Co. v. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. 68 So. 2d 232 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
    App., , and Mercer v. Tremont, La.App., .
  • Savoy v. GF Poole Mortuary 60 So. 2d 108 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1952
    1029 , 43 L.R.A.,N.S., 740; and Mills v. Heidingsfield, La.App., .
  • Mercer v. Tremont G. Ry. Co. 19 So. 2d 270 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1944
    Many of these definitions and distinctions, as set forth above, are thoroughly reviewed in the case of Mills v. Heidingsfield, La.App., .