DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Matheny v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 181 So. 647.

13 citing documents.

  • Castille v. All American Ins. Co. 550 So. 2d 334 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
  • Hebert v. Witherington 520 So. 2d 1075 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
    2d Cir. *1079 1935); (La.App.
  • Dupre v. LA RETAILERS ASS'N SELF-INSURERS 509 So. 2d 608 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
    App., ; 14 Tulane Law Review 72."
  • Stubblefield v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York 157 So. 2d 583 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
    572 (2d Cir. 1929); Matheny v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, et al., La.App., (2d Cir. 1938); and Jagneaux v. Marquette Casualty Company, et al., La.App., (1st Cir. 1961), as disclosing that Stubblefield had re-entered the scope of his employment at the time of the accident.
  • Castille v. Traders & General Insurance 137 So. 2d 396 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
    App., ; 14 Tulane Law Review 72.
  • Jagneaux v. Marquette Casualty Company 135 So. 2d 794 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
    351 ; Matheny v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty (La.App., 2 Cir., 1938) ; 14 Tulane Law Review 72.
  • Harding v. Christiana 103 So. 2d 301 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
    351 ; Matheny v. U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., La.App.1938, ; 14 Tulane Law Review 72.
  • Baker v. United States Fire Insurance Co. 89 So. 2d 405 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
    458 ; Matheny v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., La.App., ; Hare v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co., La.App., ; Grissom v. Heard, supra [La.App., ]."
  • Dominguez v. American Casualty Co. 46 So. 2d 744 La. 1950
    351 ; Mathehy v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co., La.App., ; Mancuso v. Hurwitz-Mintz Furniture Co., La.App., 181 So.
  • Warren v. Globe Indemnity Co. 30 So. 2d 346 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1947
    App., , when the couple had completed the personal visit at Dodson with Mrs. Wendt and Barnes turned his car in the direction of Olla, by way of Winnfield, he re-entered his employment, and, had this been a suit in tort, his employer would be legally liable for his acts.
  • Williamson v. De Soto Wholesale Grocery Co. 16 So. 2d 739 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1943
    Neither was the employee under any obligation to report for work at a certain time or a certain place, which distinction, in our opinion, renders the doctrine announced in Matheny v. United States Fidelity Guaranty Co., La.App., , inapplicable.
  • G'sell v. Cassagne 12 So. 2d 51 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1943
    351 ; Matheny v. United States Fidelity Guaranty Co., La.App., and Mancuso v. Hurwitz-Mintz Furniture Co., supra.
  • Warnick v. Louisiana Highway Commission 4 So. 2d 607 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
    decided by the Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit.