DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Redd v. Sokoloski, 2 So. 2d 266.

15 citing documents.

  • Frey v. Galle 399 So. 2d 1300 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
  • Smith v. McGittigan 376 So. 2d 598 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    In this regard, (La.App.
  • Watson v. Bechtel 360 So. 2d 260 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
    4th Cir. 1972), (La.App.
  • Morgan v. Sheen 348 So. 2d 101 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
  • Barnes v. Pick 311 So. 2d 609 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1975
    to the effect that where a tenant has knowledge of the generally defective condition of a portion of the rented premises, but it reasonably appears that he might safely use it with the exercise of care, his use in such manner does not constitute contributory negligence that would bar his recovery
  • Anthony v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 312 So. 2d 689 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1975
    (2d Cir. 1941), Judge (later, Justice) Hamiter stated: "* * * [W]here a tenant has knowledge of the generally defective condition of a portion of the rented premises, but it reasonably appears that he might safely use it with the exercise of care, his use in such manner does not constitute contributory negligence
  • Nelson v. Parkhurst 304 So. 2d 72 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
    We now turn to the defendants' affirmative defense of plaintiff's assumption of risk or negligence, writ denied: ".
  • Wilson v. Virgademo 258 So. 2d 572 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1972
    A review of the jurisprudence of the appellate courts of Louisiana on this issue indicates a (La.App.
  • Harrell v. Johnson 242 So. 2d 648 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
  • Hill v. Travelers Insurance Co. 128 So. 2d 277 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
    However in the case Redd v. Sokoloski, La.App., , the Court of Appeal considers the general rule relative to the maintenance of the premises by the landlord, as well as the exception thereto to the effect that when the tenant is aware of the defective condition, and the defect is of such a nature as to indicate to a reasonable minded person that the use thereof is
  • Gilliam v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company 124 So. 2d 913 La. 1960
    The case of Redd v. Sokoloski, La.App., , cited by the Court of Appeal in its opinion, is inapplicable here.
  • Gilliam v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. 119 So. 2d 657 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
    Prudhomme v. Berry, supra; Redd v. Sokoloski, La.App., .
  • Bailey v. Brown 118 So. 2d 282 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
    Both parties cite and rely upon Judge Hamiter’s often-quoted summary in Redd v. Sokoloski, La.App., 2 Cir., of the jurisprudence relating to a tenant’s contributory negligence, : “[1], [WJhere a tenant has knowledge of the generally defective condition of a portion of the rented premises, but it reasonably appears that he might safely use it with the exercise of care, his use in such manner does not constitute c
  • Prudhomme v. Berry 69 So. 2d 620 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1953
    Mr. Justice Hamiter, then a member of this Court, in the case of Redd v. Sokoloski, La.App., 1941, , after stating the general rule and the exception to it, applied the exception, saying: "(2) The second part of the stated rule, we think, is applicable to the facts of the instant case.
  • Mitchell v. Travelers Indemnity Co. 21 So. 2d 198 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1945
    App., , 268, a well stated rule for determining whether the person who makes use of defective premises should be held guilty of contributory negligence: "Counsel for the litigants have directed our attention to seventeen cases decided by appellate courts of this state, each of which involves a question somewhat similar to t