permission rule (Louisiana) · Go Syfert
← Louisiana issues

permission rule in Louisiana

11 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1939–2000 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Louisiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (1)

CaseFollowedCited
Manzella v. Doegreen
la · 1996 · cited in 5 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 1996–2000
2 sentences

2000Manzella v. Doe, 94-2854, pp. 6-7 (La.12/8/95); 664 So.2d 398, 402 (citation omitted).

1999Manzella v. Doe, supra, at 402.

25

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (8)

CaseCitedYears
Parks v. Hall green
la · 1938
2 sentences

1996Furthermore, defendants rely on Norton v. Lewis, 623 So.2d 874 (La.1993) to argue that the initial permission rule as first articulated in Parks v. Hall, 189 La. 849 , 181 So. 191 (La.1938) and its progeny is controlling law as to the facts of the instant case.

1996Furthermore, defendants rely on Norton v. Lewis, 623 So.2d 874 (La.1993) to argue that the initial permission rule as first articulated in Parks v. Hall, 189 La. 849 , 181 So. 191 (La.1938) and its progeny is controlling law as to the facts of the instant case.

21961–1996
Norton v. Lewis green
la · 1993
1 sentence

1996Furthermore, defendants rely on Norton v. Lewis, 623 So.2d 874 (La.1993) to argue that the initial permission rule as first articulated in Parks v. Hall, 189 La. 849 , 181 So. 191 (La.1938) and its progeny is controlling law as to the facts of the instant case.

11996–1996
Perkins v. McDow green
la · 1993
1 sentence

1995Id. at 315 .

11995–1995
Rogillio v. Cazedessus green
la · 1961
2 sentences

1968The holding of the court seems to be more in keeping with the position of Justice Sanders, dissenting [concurring] in Rogillio v. Cazedes-sus, than with the majority opinion.” Justice Sanders in the case of Rogillio v. Cazedessus, 241 La. 186 , 127 So.2d 734 (1961), in a concurring opinion, very ably stated the initial permission rule in the following language: “Concisely stated, this doctrine is that initial permission, express or implied, is sufficient to constitute the operator of a vehicle an insured under the omnibus clause.

1968The holding of the court seems to be more in keeping with the position of Justice Sanders, dissenting [concurring] in Rogillio v. Cazedes-sus, than with the majority opinion.” Justice Sanders in the case of Rogillio v. Cazedessus, 241 La. 186 , 127 So.2d 734 (1961), in a concurring opinion, very ably stated the initial permission rule in the following language: “Concisely stated, this doctrine is that initial permission, express or implied, is sufficient to constitute the operator of a vehicle an insured under the omnibus clause.

11968–1968
Dominguez v. American Casualty Co. green
la · 1950
2 sentences

1961In any event, affirming that where there is no initial permission, the question of deviation does not enter the picture, counsel contend — on authority of Dominguez v. American Casualty Company, 217 La. 487 , 46 So.2d 744—there must be evidence of permission, expressed or implied, from the named insured to the driver of the car at the time of the accident, which is clearly lacking in the instant case because leaving the keys was for the restricted purpose of moving the Oliver car should it become necesary to clear the passage into the Cazedessus garage, and since that eventually did not materi

1961In any event, affirming that where there is no initial permission, the question of deviation does not enter the picture, counsel contend — on authority of Dominguez v. American Casualty Company, 217 La. 487 , 46 So.2d 744—there must be evidence of permission, expressed or implied, from the named insured to the driver of the car at the time of the accident, which is clearly lacking in the instant case because leaving the keys was for the restricted purpose of moving the Oliver car should it become necesary to clear the passage into the Cazedessus garage, and since that eventually did not materi

11961–1961
Stanley v. Cryer Drilling Co. neutral
la · 1948
2 sentences

1950This rule was first announced in the case of Parks v. Hall, supra. In Stanley v. Cryer Drilling Co., 213 La. 980 , 36 So.2d 9 , in which I also dissented, the rule was extended to cover an employee who took possession of the vehicle for his personal use after the end of the day's work.

1950This rule was first announced in the case of Parks v. Hall, supra. In Stanley v. Cryer Drilling Co., 213 La. 980 , 36 So.2d 9 , in which I also dissented, the rule was extended to cover an employee who took possession of the vehicle for his personal use after the end of the day's work.

11950–1950
Monroe v. Heard green
lactapp · 1936
1 sentence

1944"The distinction in Louisiana between cases of the Thibodeaux type and cases such as the case of Monroe v. Heard [La.App.], 168 So. 519 , seems to depend on whether or not the party in control of the automobile with the permission of the named assured and who surrenders control to a third person, has what may be called general discretion, implied from continuous control and possession, or whether his relationship is that of a casual borrower such as Mrs. Perkins was in the Monroe case.

11944–1944
Zuvich v. Ballay green
lactapp · 1933
1 sentence

1939Zuvich v. Ballay et al., La.App., 149 So. 281 .

11939–1939

Statutes the citing opinions construe

LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 32:900 (4)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

NJ 21 (1960–2019) IL 19 (1915–2023) NY 16 (1916–2025) LA 11 (1939–2000) CA 8 (1976–2024) OH 6 (1986–2007) MO 6 (1970–2003) WI 5 (1961–2010) MN 5 (1983–2003) CO 5 (1995–1999) MS 4 (1968–1999) NE 4 (1971–2001) TX 4 (2003–2021) MT 2 (1987–2008) MI 2 (1910–2023) MD 2 (1991–2004) VT 2 (1964–2000) CT 2 (2000–2024) WA 2 (2008–2008)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check