Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Whitton, 729 So. 2d 1024.

134 citing documents.

David Cloud v. National Automotive Insurance Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
Civ Code art. 2047; Peterson v. Schimek , 98-1712, p. 5 (La.3/2/99), -29; Carbon, 719 So.2d at 440-441; Reynolds, 634 So.2d at 1183.
Cloud v. NATIONAL AUTOMOTIVE INS. CO. 875 So. 2d 866 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
Civ Code art.2047; Peterson v. Schimek, 98-1712, p. 5 (La.3/2/99), -29 ; Carbon, 719 So.2d at 440-441 ; Reynolds, 634 So.2d at 1183.
McDermott Inc. v. Records Storage & Services, Inc. 875 So. 2d 863 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
Thus, “when a contract can be construed”, such as in this case, “from the four corners of the instrument without looking to extrinsic evidence, the questioning of contractual interpretation is answered as a matter of law and summary judgment is appropriate.” Peterson v. Schimek, 98-1712 (La.3/2/99), .
Mayo v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 869 So. 2d 96 La. 2004
art.2047; Cadwallader, 848 So.2d at 580 ; Peterson v. Schimek, 98-1712, p. 5 (La.3/2/99), -29 ; Carbon, 719 So.2d at 440-441 ; Reynolds, 634 So.2d at 1183.
Cochran v. Layrisson 859 So. 2d 799 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
e; Magnon v. Collins, 98-2822, p. 6 (La.7/7/99), ; Peterson v. Schimek, 98-1712, p. 4 (La.3/2/99)
Vintage Contracting v. Dixie Bldg. Material 858 So. 2d 22 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
Peterson v. Schimek, 98-1712 (La.3/2/99), .
Norfolk Southern Corp. v. Calif. Union Ins. 859 So. 2d 167 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Peterson v. Schimek, 98-1712, p. 4 (La.3/2/99), .
Cadwallader v. Allstate Ins. Co. 848 So. 2d 577 La. 2003
Civ Code art. 2047; Peterson v. Schimek, 98-1712, p. 5 (La.3/2/99), -29 ; Carbon, 719 So.2d at 440-441 ; Reynolds, 634 So.2d at 1183.
National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Harrington 854 So. 2d 880 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
art.2050; Peterson v. Schimek, 98-1712 (La.03/02/99), .
Canal 66 Partnership v. Reynoir 838 So. 2d 52 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
The Louisiana Supreme Court instructs that: “Courts lack the authority to alter the terms of contracts under the guise of contractual interpretation when the [contract] provisions are couched in clear and unambiguous terms.” Peterson v. Schimek, 98-1712 (La.3/2/99), ; Louisiana Ins.
MOBILE EXPLORATION v. Certain Underwriters 837 So. 2d 11 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
[15] See also Peterson v. Schimek, 98-1712, p. 9 (La.3/2/99), .
Bernard v. Iberia Bank 832 So. 2d 355 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
*360 Peterson v. Schimek, 98-1712, p.5 (La.3/2/99), ; Brown v. Drillers, Inc ., 93-1019, p. ____ (La.1/14/94), .
Covington v. Ace Transportation, Inc. 830 So. 2d 495 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
Peterson v. Schimek, 98-1712 (La.3/2/99), ; Brown v. Drillers Inc., 93-1019 (La.1/14/94), .
Gottsegen v. Hart Property Management Inc. 820 So. 2d 1138 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
Peterson v. Schimek, 98-1712 (La.3/2/99), ; Yount, 627 So.2d at 151 .
Bumgardner v. Terra Nova Ins. Co. Ltd. 806 So. 2d 945 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
Peterson v. Schimek, 98-1712 (La.3/02/99), .
Succession of Fannaly v. Lafayette Ins. Co. 805 So. 2d 1134 La. 2002
art.2050; Peterson v. Schimek, 98-1712 (La.03/02/99), .
Smith v. Reliance Ins. Co. of Illinois 807 So. 2d 1010 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
e; Magnon v. Collins, 98-2822 (La.7/7/99), ; Peterson v. Schimek, 98-1712 (La.3/2/99), ; (La.
Townsend v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 793 So. 2d 473 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
Peterson v. Schimek, 98-1712 (La.3/02/99), ; Brown v. Drillers, Inc., 93-1019 (La.1/14/94), .
Alexis v. Southwood Ltd. Partnership 792 So. 2d 100 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
Peterson v. Schimek, 98-1712 (La.3/2/99), .
Orazio v. Henderson 790 So. 2d 754 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
Peterson v. Schimek, 98-1712, p. 5 (La.3/2/99); -29 (citations omitted).
Thomas v. Gallant Insurance 789 So. 2d 74 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
Peterson v. Schimek, 98-1712, p. 5 (La.3/2/99), (emphasis added; citations omitted).
Blackburn v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. 784 So. 2d 637 La. 2001
e; Magnon v. Collins, 98-2822, p. 6 (La.7/7/99), ; Peterson v. Schimek, 98-1712, p. 4 (La.3/2/99), ; (La.
Becnel v. Alexander 783 So. 2d 540 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
Peterson v. Schimek, 98 1712, at 5 (La.3/2/99), , citing Brown v. Drillers, Inc., 93-1019, at 9 (La.1/14/94), -50 ; Peyton Place, Condominium Ass’n, Inc. v. Guastella, 95-396, at 11 (La.App.
Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Stewart Const. Co., Inc. 780 So. 2d 1253 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
Peterson v. Schimek, 98-1712, (La.3/2/99) .
Hooper v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 782 So. 2d 1029 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
Peterson v. Schimek, 98-1712 (La.3/2/99), .
Doerr v. Mobil Oil Corp. 774 So. 2d 119 La. 2000
e; Magnon v. Collins, 98-2822, p. 6 (La.7/7/99), ; Peterson v. Schimek, 98-1712, p. 4 (La.3/2/99)
Blackburn v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. 771 So. 2d 175 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
Civ.Code art. 1848; Peterson v. Schimek, 98-1712, (La.3/2/99); .
Livas v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 797 So. 2d 694 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
La.Civ.Code art.1983; See Peterson v. Schimek, 98-1712 (La.3/2/99), .
Gilbert v. BDOWS, INC. 764 So. 2d 313 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
Peterson v. Schimek, 98-1712 (La.3/2/99)
Sieferman v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 760 So. 2d 549 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
The trial court in its written reasons for judgment states, and the plaintiff argues in brief, that the recent supreme court decision, Peterson v. Schimek, 98-1712 (La.3/2/99); , is controlling in this matter and stands for the proposition that the trial court is precluded from considering parol evidence to alter the terms of an | ¿insurance contract which is clear and unambiguous.
Etienne v. National Auto. Ins. Co. 759 So. 2d 51 La. 2000
art. 2046; Peterson v. Schimek, 98-1712 (La.3/2/99), .
Keller v. Case 757 So. 2d 920 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
Civ.Code art. 1848; Peterson v. Schimek, 98-1712, p. 9 (La.3/2/99), .
Calogero v. Safeway Ins. Co. of Louisiana 753 So. 2d 170 La. 2000
art.2046; Peterson v. Schimek, 98-1712 (La.3/2/99), .
Bergeron v. Pan American Assur. Co. 731 So. 2d 1037 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
Peterson v. Schimek, 98-1712, pp. 4-5 (La.3/2/99), -29 (citations to cases omitted).