Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Adams v. Golson, 174 So. 876.

41 citing documents.

Mayo v. Nissan Motor Corp. 639 So. 2d 773 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
Aisole v. Dean 560 So. 2d 647 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
Hebert v. Weaver 484 So. 2d 743 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Lewis v. Till 395 So. 2d 737 La. 1981
Sherwood v. Sepulvado 362 So. 2d 1161 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1978
Carter v. Salter 351 So. 2d 312 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
Hobbs v. Fireman's Fund American Insurance Cos. 293 So. 2d 608 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1974
Sears, Roebuck and Company v. Gunn 286 So. 2d 404 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1973
NOTES [1] Because the creditor has not appealed from the dismissal of the husband we need not recite that the community is not bound for the wife's debt; Adams v. Golson, 1937, , 174 So.
Vonner v. State ex rel. Department of Public Welfare 258 So. 2d 93 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
Citing among other authorities, Civil Code Articles 2315; 2317-2322; 2985-2986; Adams v. Golson [ ], [174] [176] So.
Demoss v. Summers 257 So. 2d 164 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
Employers Liability Assurance Corp. v. Carter 227 So. 2d 616 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
McCauley v. LaFleur 205 So. 2d 458 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
Nationwide Acceptance Co. v. Griffin 171 So. 2d 701 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
Dowden v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company 151 So. 2d 697 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1963
259 , where the wife was driving the family automobile to take a lady friend to a meeting of the Eastern Star Lodge our Supreme Court stated the law as follows: " , 174 So.
Galle v. Ingraham 140 So. 2d 741 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
Martin v. Brown 124 So. 2d 904 La. 1960
Martin v. Brown 117 So. 2d 665 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
Vail v. Spampinato 115 So. 2d 343 La. 1959
Vail v. Spampinato 108 So. 2d 262 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
Notwithstanding this observation, we felt impelled to the conclusion that the mission of a wife for the purpose of procuring a knitting needle in order to knit a sweater for her personal use and adornment constituted an activity outside and beyond the purview of a community interest, , 174 So.
Hart v. Hardgrave 103 So. 2d 910 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1958
Emmco Insurance v. California Co. 101 So. 2d 628 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1958
Arrington v. Hearin Tank Lines 80 So. 2d 167 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1955
Adams v. Golson, 1937, , 174 So.
Aisene v. Gehbauer 70 So. 2d 781 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1954
575 ; , at page 371, 174 So.
Overruled Howard v. Toye Bros. Yellow Cab Co. 70 So. 2d 465 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
earlier decision of the Court, , 174 So.
McDowell v. National Sur. Corp. 68 So. 2d 189 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
Baton Rouge Yellow Cab Co. v. Bourgeois 57 So. 2d 795 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1952
The Supreme Court with Chief Justice Fournet dissenting and Justice Moise concurring in part and dissenting in part held: “We are unable to make the distinction between the purpose of the mission of the wife as was made in Adams v. Golson [ , 174 So.
Brantley v. Clarkson 46 So. 2d 614 La. 1950
This necessarily leads to a , 174 So.
Lambert v. McKinster 44 So. 2d 513 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1950
Brantley v. Clarkson 39 So. 2d 617 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1948
748 , in which the court held that an errand of charity by the wife is a purely personal mission; and, finally, , 174 So.
Pancoast v. Cooperative Cab Co. 37 So. 2d 452 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1948
Levy v. New Orleans Northeastern R. Co. 20 So. 2d 559 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1945
St. Paul v. Britain 19 So. 2d 596 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1944
Meibaum v. Campisi 16 So. 2d 257 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1944
In so holding, , 174 So.
Ætna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Simms 200 So. 34 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
Anderson v. Carrick 198 So. 385 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1940
Gott v. Scott 199 So. 460 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1940
Keller Zander, Inc. v. Copeland 196 So. 527 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1940
575 ; , at page 371, 174 So.
Wise v. Smith 186 So. 857 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
Matulich v. Crockett 184 So. 748 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1938
If such be the case, Mr. Crockett cannot be held for the damages occasioned by the fault of his wife, for, , 174 So.
Hadrick v. Burbank Cooperage Co. 177 So. 831 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1938
the ability of the borrower to carefully operate the vehicle: “It is well settled in this state that the owner of an automobile is not liable for the damages caused while his automobile is being operated by a third person with his knowledge and consent, unless he was present or the third party was his agent or servant and was acting within the scope of his agency or employment.” , 174 So.
D. H. Holmes Co. v. Morris 177 So. 417 La. 1937
621 .” In a very recent case, , 174 So.